Senate He aring s

Before the Committee on Appropriations

L ft

~ c > a •-? v 

t U N IV tH a lf Y

f a | E N Military Con stru ctio n

App ro pr iatio ns

Fiscal Year 1980

CONGRESS, FIRS T SESSION

H.R. 4391
I
MILITAR Y CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 1980

H E A R IN G S

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTE E OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-SIXT H CONGRESS

FIR ST SESSION

ON

H.R. 439 1

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEF ENSE FOR THE FISCAL

YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1080, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

41-638 O WASHINGTON : 1979

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printin g Office

Washington. D.C. 20402
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Subcommittee on Military Construction

WALTER D. HUDDLESTON, Kentucky, Chairman

J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana PAUL LAXALT, Nevada

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii T E D STEVENS, Alaska

JIM SASSER, Tennessee

James A. Fellenbaum, Cle rk

Richard A. Pierce. M in or ity Staff Membe r

cn>
CONTEN TS

Monday, February 26, 1979

Dep artm ent o f Defense: Page

Installations and hou sing............................................................................................. 1

Monday, M*rch 5, 1979

Dep artm ent o f Defense:

Office of the Secretary o f De fen se.............................................................................. 71

Departme nt o f the A rmy ....................„........................................................................ 79

Departme nt of the N avy............................................................................................... 89

Departme nt of the Air Fo rce....................................................................................... 103

U.S. Mission to NAT O................................................................................................. 107

Friday, March 9, 1979

Dep artm ent o f Defense:

Office of the Secretary of Defen se.............................................................................. 135

Executive session.................................................................................................. 141

Wednesday, March 21, 1979

Dep artm ent of Defense:

National G uard a nd Reserve Forces:

National G uar d B ure au......................... .............................................................. 195

Air National G ua rd............................................................................................... 199

Army Re serve........................................................................................................ 209

Naval Reserve........................................................................................................ 217

Air Force Re serve................................................................................................. 221

Non departm enta l witnesses:

National G uard Association o f the United S tates..................................................... 235

Reserve Officers Association o f the United S tat es.................................................... 246

Adjutants General Association o f the United State s.................................................. 252

Thursday, March 22, 1979

Dep artm ent of Defense:

Dep artm ent of the Navy............................................................................................... 283

Department of the Air For ce ....................................................................................... 311

Executive session.................................................................................. 314

On)
IV

Friday, March 23, 1979

Departme nt of Defense:

Department o f the Na vy...............................................................................................

Marine C orp s................................................................................................................

Page

343

361

Tuesday, March 27, 1979

Dep artm ent of Defense:

Departm ent o f the Air F or ce .......................................................................................

Thursday, March 29, 1979

Dep artm ent of Defense:

Department o f the Army:

Corps of Engineers—C hie f..................................................................................

Corps of Engineers—Assistant Chief..................................................................

399

427

471
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980

MONDAY, FEBRU ARY 26, 1979

U.S. Senate,

Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:35 a.m., in room 1223, Everett McKinley Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Walter D. Huddleston (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Huddleston and Laxalt.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Installations and Housing

STATEMENT OF PERRY FLIAKAS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INSTALLATIONS AND HOUSING, OFFICE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

DEF ENSE, MANPOWER RESERVE AFFAIRS AND LOGISTICS

ACCOMPANIED BY:

JOHN F. ROLLENCE, ACTING DIRECTOR, FACIL ITIES PROGRAMING

E. A. ROGNER, DIRECTOR, INSTALLATIONS MANAGEMENT AND

PLANNING

JOHN P. SYLVA. CAPTAIN, CEC, USN, ACTING DIRECTOR, CONSTRUCTION OPERA TIONS AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

MORTIMER M. MARSHALL, JR., DIRECTOR, CONSTRUCTION STAN DARDS AND DESIGN

LAWRENCE W. JACKLEY, COLONEL, USA, SPEC IAL ASSISTANT,

PANAMA CANAL TREATY AFFAIRS

DENNIS H. TROSCH, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL (LOGISTICS)

OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR HUDDLESTON

Senator Huddleston. The subcommittee will come to order.

This is the first in a series of hearings on fiscal year 1980 budget

requests for military construction and family housing programs of 

the Department of Defense.

Before we begin, I want to welcome Senator Laxalt from Nevada, 

who is the new rankin g minority member of this subcommittee. We 

look forward to working with you, Paul, and I hope that you will 

find it very interesting.

Senator Laxalt. I am sure I will.

Senator Huddleston. The total budget request for 1980 is slightly in excess of $3.7 billion. This represents a fairly substantial 

decrease from last y ear ’s level, a subject which we will be pursuing. 

We will also be considering program supplementals totaling $239

(1)
2

million, an amount which I believe is somewhat precedent-setting 

for these appropriations.

These hearings will provide us with a general overview of the 

program and its underlying assumptions. In subsequent hearings, 

we will deal with the individual service programs, and certain 

specific areas of high interest.

Our principal witness is the Honorable Perry J. Fliakas, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Insta llations and Housing, accompanied by various representatives of the Department of Defense.

Before proceeding with the witness, Senator Laxalt, do you have 

anything th at you would like to comment on at this time?

Senator Laxalt. I am the new kid on the block as far as the 

subcommittee, and perhaps I will reserve comment until I hear 

what Mr. Fliakas has to say.

I would like to indicate tha t I am looking forward to working on 

the subcommittee. I have already been briefed by the staff, and I 

want you, gentlemen, to understand that as far as my responsibilities on the subcommittee are concerned, I take them seriously. In 

any matter where I can help, I will be available.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you very much, Senator Laxalt.

Mr. Fliakas, you may proceed.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Fliakas. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like 

to brief my stateme nt and then submit it in its entirety, for the 

record.

Senator Huddleston. Very well.

[The statement follows:]
3

Statement of Perry J. Fli ak as

Mr. Cha irm an an d Members o f th e C om m itte e:

I am p le a s e d to hav e th e o p p o rtu n it y to a p p e a r b e fo re y o u r Comm itte e to d a y t o p r e s e n t th e F is c a l Y ea r 198 0 M ilita r y C o n s tru c ti o n Pro gra m ,

an d to d is c u s s some o f i t s d e t a i l s an d o th e r c o n s tr u c tio n r e l a t e d m at ­

t e r s a f f e c t in g th e f a c i l i t y re s o u rc e s an d n eed s o f th e D epart m ent o f

D e fe n s e .

The r e q u e s t f o r FY 1980 t h a t we a re p r e s e n tin g to d a y has been 

s t r u c t u r e d th ro u g h th e u se o f th e Z er o Bas ed B u d g eti n g te c h n iq u e .

I t r e p r e s e n ts a c a r e f u l ly b a la n c e d ap p ro a c h to th e tw in pro b le m s 

o f p r o v id in g new f a c i l i t i e s r e q u ire d by ch an g es in w ea pons, a d v an cin g 

te c h n o lo g ie s , N a tio n a l S e c u r ity p o l i c y , o r o th e r f a c t o r s , an d o u r c o n tin u ­

in g e f f o r t t o u p g ra d e o r re p la c e much o f o u r s u b s t a n t i a l in v e n to ry o f 

a g e in g an d o b s o le s c e n t f a c i l i t i e s .

The FY 198 0 p ro g ra m , as w it h p a s t - y e a r p ro g ra m s, has ev o lv ed th ro u g h 

a s e r i e s o f c a r e f u l , d e t a i l e d re v ie w s o f e ach p r o j e c t p ro p o se d by th e 

M il i t a r y S e r v ic e s . I n th o s e re v ie w s , p rim a ry c o n c e rn h as been to a s s u r e 

t h a t th e p r o j e c t was n o t o n ly e s s e n t i a l to m ee t a v a lid an d u rg e n t M ilit a r y n e e d , b u t re p re s e n te d th e m os t c o s t e f f e c t i v e an d f e a s i b l e metho d 

f o r a c h ie v in g th e o b je c tiv e . As a r e s u l t o f th e s e re v ie w s , th e DoD FY 

198 0 C o n s tru c ti o n Pro gr am w i l l en han ce th e m i l i ta r y p o s tu r e an d r e a d i ­

n e s s o f th e A c ti v e F o rc e s an d t h e i r Gu ard an d R ese rv e Com po ne nt s.

Th e FY 198 0 a p p r o p r ia tio n r e q u e s t f o r th e D ep ar tm en t o f D efe nse 

M ilita r y C o n s tru c ti o n an d F am il y H ousi ng Pro gr am t o t a l s $ 3 ,8 5 6 ,6 2 5 ,0 0 0 .

In FY 1979 th e D epart m ent o f D efe nse re q u e s te d $ 4 ,3 7 2 ,2 0 0 ,0 0 0 . A c tu a l 

en actm en t f o r FY 1979 t o t a l e d $ 4 ,0 0 0 ,0 6 3 ,0 0 0 . S u b m it te d c o n c u r r e n tly 

w it h th e FY 1980 b u d g et i s a su p p le m e n ta l FY 1979 re q u e s t o f $ 2 3 9 ,6 8 0 ,0 0 0 , 

w hic h I w i l l i n s e r t f o r th e re c o r d . T hus, th e FY 1980 re q u e s t r e f l e c t s a
4

d e c rease o f some $ 5 1 5 ,5 7 5 ,0 0 0 from th e amount i n i t i a l l y re q u est ed in

FY 1979 and $ 1 4 3 ,4 3 8 ,0 0 0 l e s s th an th e FY 197 9 en a cte d a p p ro p ria ti o n . A

la r g e p o rti o n o f p r e v io u sly pla nne d m ilit a r y c o n s tr u c tio n progr am s ha ve

be en d efe rred in r e c o g n it io n o f th e ne ed to r e s tr a in sp en din g in th o se

a reas th a t do n ot r e p resen t an urg en t near-t erm D efe n se nee d.

The le v e l o f m ili t a r y c o n s tr u c tio n , w h il e l e s s th an o p ti m a l, i s

ad eq uat e to su pport th e e s s e n t ia l m is sio n s and o p e r a tio n s o f th e m i li ­

ta r y de pa rt m en ts and d e fe n se a g e n c ie s . The budge t r e f l e c t s th e d e c is io n

to d e fe r , or in some c a s e s pro ce ed a t a re duce d r a te o f c a p it a l in v e s t ­

men t in c e r ta in are as o f c o n tr u c ti o n nee ds whi ch w i l l n ot im m ed ia te ly

a f f e c t ou r c a p a b ilit ie s fo r m ain ta in in g an o v e r a ll bala nce d d efe n se

p o stu r e . T his d e c is io n i s a l o g ic a l ou tg ro w th o f and i s f u l l y c o n s is te n t

w it h th e A d m in is tr a ti o n ’ s o v e r a ll e f f o r t s to re duce th e F ed eral d e f i c i t

and r e s tr a in th e le v e l o f government sp en din g in a l l are as o f th e

F ed er al bu dg et where su ch red u cti o n s can be ach ie ved w it hou t adver se

a f f e c t on v i t a l s e r v ic e s and in t e r e s t s .

We ha ve e x e r c is e d th e g r e a te s t o f ca re in th e s e le c t io n o f p r o je c ts

to a ss u re th a t th ey ar e s it e d a t i n s t a l l a t i o n s which ar e fi rm and w i l l

be ne ed ed fo r th e fo r e s e e a b le fu tu r e . We b e lie v e , th e r e fo r e , th a t th e

FY 198 0 req u est i s an a u ste r e , b a la n ced , and m ea nin gf ul pro gra m which

ad d ress es th e most e s s e n t ia l m ili ta r y c o n str u c tio n n eed s.

Tu rn in g now to a co m pa riso n o f t h is y e a r 's a p p ro p ria ti o n req u est to

th e t o t a l req u este d l a s t y e a r , th e fo ll o w in g i s a ta b u la r summary o f th e

a p p ro p ria ti o n req u este d fo r th e A c tiv e , Guard and R es er ve F o r c e s, th e

D ef en se A g e n c ie s, and th e Fam ily H ou sing Pr ogram, ar ra ng ed fo r easy

co mpa riso n w it h th e FY 1979 prog ram.
5

($ M il li o n s)

FY 1979 FY 1979 FY 1979 FY 1980

Req ue st Ena ct ed S u ppl. Req ue st

Army 88 1.9 71 1.5 11 8.0 72 2.3 Navy 82 0.9 76 0.1 1.1 55 1.9 A ir Fo rc e 63 9.1 48 3. 3 37 .6 53 9.7 Defen se Age nc ies 17 6.3 19 4.9 22 .7 24 4. 3 Gua rd /R es er ve Forc es 158.9 16 8.9 — 10 0.0 Fa m ily Ho using and Homeowners A ssi st an ce 1,6 95 .1 1,6 81.4 51 .7 1,6 98.4

TOTAL 4,3 7 2 .2 4 ,0 0 0 .1 23 1.1 3,8 56.6

As men tio ne d e a r l i e r , th e program r e f l e c t s a c a r e f u ll y s tr u c tu re d 

mix of new re quir em ents and a me asured ad va nc e to war d ou r go al of moder niz in g or re p la c in g many o f th e o ld er s tr u c tu r e s in th e in v en to ry . The 

d iv is io n be tw een th e se m aj or c a te g o rie s is ro ughly 70 p e rc e n t de vo ted 

to su p p o rt of c u rre n t m is si o n s and new req u ir em en ts , and ab out 25 

p e rc e n t a ll o c a te d to re pla ce m en t and m o d ern iz ati o n . The re m ai nd er 

re p re se n ts minor c o n str u c ti o n and o th e r s im il a r p r o je c ts not c le a rly 

a ttr ib u ta b le to e ith e r of th e major ele m en ts . While we would lik e a 

g re a te r em ph as is on th e re pla ce m en t and m o d ern iz ati o n prog ram in FY 

1980, we hav e to co n sid er many co mpe tin g p r i o r i t i e s w it h in th e t o ta l 

m at ri x of re q u e sts .

At th is p o in t, I must make some m en tion of in f la t io n in c o n str u c ­

tio n c o s ts , wh ich in re c e n t y ears ha s s ig n if ic a n tly a ffe c te d ou r e f f o r ts 

to m od erni ze th e in v en to ry . As a l l of us a re aw ar e, in f la tio n and th e 

su cces s o f ou r e f f o r t s in co ping w it h i t p la y an im port ant p a r t in th e 

co n ti n u in g econom ic h e a lth of th e N ati on. I n f la tio n in th e c o n str u c ti o n 

in d u str y over th e p a s t de ca de ha s outp ac ed th e g e n era l tr e n d ev id e n t in 

o th e r el em en ts o f th e econom y, alt hough in th e y ear j u s t p a s t, c o n str u c ­

tio n in f la tio n was about 1% le s s th an g en era l i n f la t io n . P a r a lle lin g 

th ese in f la tio n a r y tr e n d s in th e dom es tic c o n str u c ti o n in d u s tr y , ha s 

be en th e ste ad y e ro sio n of th e v alu e o f th e d o lla r in in te r n a tio n a l 

money m ar ke ts wh ich ha s se v e re ly im pa cted c o n str u c ti o n p ro je c ts o v e rsea s.
6

Despite these influences on our pl an s, the progr am has moved forward steadily and with the suppor t of Cong ress we have been able over 

the past five years to secure some $2.9 bil lion of replacement and 

mode rniz atio n projects.

The current total backlog of facility requirements is estimated at 

$31.8 billion for the three Military Departments. About $15.2 billion of 

that represents replac ement and m ode rni zation projects to eliminate 

inadequate and over-age facilities. Futu re progress in overcoming this 

substantial defici t will continue to depend prim aril y on both an a bat ement in inflationary trends in const ruction costs as well as future 

increases in the amount of mil itary cons truc tion budgets whi ch we can

devote to these needs.

Wit hin the total appro pria tion requested, some $3.9 billion, about 

$1.4 bi llion are allocated to constru ctio n within the United States,

$225 m illi on for general support activi ties, and about $540 mill ion to 

overseas construction. The overseas total includes $150 million as our

cost share contribution to NAT O Infrastructure. The remainder, $1.7 billion, are the mili tary family housing a ppropri atio n neces sary to finance 

operations and maintenance, leasing, and simil ar activities for support of 

family housin g worldwide.

Normall y at this point in my statement, and in c onju ncti on with my 

comments regar ding the construc tion overseas, I woul d review the major 

elements of the overseas program. This yea r however, and in vie w of the

great interest mani fested by Congress conc erni ng construction in Europe 

I will address that portion of our program in detail in a special sta tement which I will present at a separate special hearing.

Now I would like to address several important segments of this 

year's request which in the past have been a matter of interest to the
7

Congress, and which we consider to be essential elements affec ting our 

total program. The first of these will be the effect of construction 

inflation wh ich I previou sly mentioned.

Effect of Inflation on Construction

Infl atio n in the construc tion industry, fueled pri ncipally by m aterials price increases, continues to decrease the va lue of our construction dollar. The Engineerin g News Record publi shed by the McGr aw-Hill 

Company, a generally accep ted auth orit y on constru ctio n costs shows an 

increase of between 7.5% and 8.OX for the period Dece mber 1977 to 

December 1978. The higher figure is for pro jects whi ch are materials 

sensitive and the lower for those which are labor intensive. Materials 

in genera l were up about 11% in that time period, whereas labor was up a 

little less than 7% with unskill ed labor increasi ng at a faster rate 

than skilled labor. Some other indices such as those of the Commerce

Department and the Bureau of Rec lamation show increases of about the

same amount, avera ging around 8%.

What we try to do in pri cing the p roje cts in our pro gram is to 

predict costs about 2 year s in advance. This is par ticularly difficult 

right now. Basic items such as asphalt which is a p etr oleum by-p roduct 

and port land cement whic h requires a large amount of energy for its 

pro duction are highly depe nden t on the cost of oil w hich is, to a large 

degree, beyo nd our control. Imported steel also represents a high 

percent age of the steel used in the const ruct ion industry. In the past 

this steel has been cheaper than domes tic steel and has tended to hold 

down the p rice of domest ic steel. However, the decline in the dollar 

exchange v alue for the curre ncie s of large steel producing countries 

such as Japan would appear to indicate higher costs of imported steel in 

the future which may lead to higher prices of domes tic steel. The
8

d e c li n e in th e exchan ge valu e o f th e d o lla r a g a in st th e ye n and th e mark 

ha s a ls o had a se vere im pa ct on o v ers eas c o n str u c ti o n p r o je c ts .

Ano th er f a c to r is th a t th e c iv i l ia n c o n str u c ti o n in d u str y i s in a 

p e ri o d of hig h a c tiv ity . H ig he r c o sts have not y e t ca us ed a slo w- down . 

We have se en th is p a r tic u la r ly in th e fe wer number o f b id s receiv ed fo r 

m ilita r y c o n str u c ti o n p r o je c ts . C ost s are h ig h er th an a y ear ag o. Most 

p re d ic ti o n s in d ic a te th a t housi ng c o n str u c ti o n w ill d e c li n e over th e 

nex t y ear b u t th a t o th e r c o n str u c ti o n a c t i v it y w ill co n ti n u e a t a hi gh

le v e l.

We have ba se d ou r p ric in g on th e as su m pt io n th a t c o sts w ill r i s e 7% 

in f i s c a l 1979, 6.5% in f i s c a l y ear 1980 and 6% p er annum a f t e r th a t.

The e sti m a te s in th is prog ram r e f l e c t t h is p ro je c ti o n as do our re q u ests

fo r in c re a s e s in th e s ta tu to r y c o st lim ita tio n fo r un acco mpa nied p ers onn el h o usi ng. Wh ile we re cogniz e th e r is k of th is p ric in g p o li c y we 

b e li e v e i t p re fe ra b le to o v e r-e sti m a ti n g a t a tim e when in f la t io n and 

budget c o n tr o l are v i t a l is su e s to a l l o f us.

CONSTRUCTION EXECUTION

The Dep artm en t o f Defen se ha s ach ie ved f u rth e r im provem ent in th e 

e a rly ex ecu ti o n of th e M il it a ry C o n str u cti o n Prog ram. By th e end of 

Se ptem be r 1978, 90% of th e FY 1978 M ilit a ry C o n str u cti o n Pro gram was 

un de r c o n tr a c t aw ard. T his co mp are s to 77% in FY 1976 and 89% in FY 

1977. The M il it a ry Dep artm en ts have be en commended fo r t h is su sta in e d 

im prov em en t.

The fo cus o f ou r a tte n tio n ha s now s h ifte d to th e e a r l i e r desi g n of 

p r o je c ts . Our go al is to ha ve 90% o f th e FY 1980 pr og ram re ad y fo r 

ad v ert is em en t by th e end of March 1980 and 100% by th e end of Ju ne 1980 

The com bin at io n of e a rly desi g n and e a rly aw ard s w ill en ab le us to
9

furnish the required facilities to the users in a m ore timely and costeffectiv e manner by taking advantage of more favor able bidding conditions early in the fiscal year.

Planning and Design

Plann ing and design funds for the active forces (under the continuing auth orization of 31 USC 723) are requested in the amount of

$172.2 millio n of which $158.2 millio n is for the Military Depa rtments 

and $14 millio n is for the De fense Agencies. In addition, plannin g and 

design funds in the amount of $12.0 milli on are reques ted for the Guard 

and Reserve.

These funds will be used prin cipal ly for desig n of projects that 

will be submit ted for yo ur consi dera tion in the FY 1981 and 1982 annual 

programs. Funds have already been commit ted to the design of most FY 1980 

proje cts in response to the Con gre ss’ desire that design of projects be 

at about the 35% compl etio n stage when constru ctio n funding is requested. This permit s firm cost estimates and assure s that the p roject can 

be adve rtised for cons truc tion in the budg et year. The Military D epartments will ident ify projects and the speci fic requirements of each 

project at an earlier stage in order to meet the design goals. The 

Departments will be ready to describe these efforts to you in detail in 

subsequent hearings.

I would like to empha size again, as I have in the past, that the 

best assurance we have of b uilding economical, efficient, energy saving 

facilities is to obta in good, early design. Cons ider ing the costs of 

construct ion and life cycle operation and maintenanc e of the facility, 

this is the single most critical and yet cheap est element of the entire 

process. We are pleased that the Committees of Congr ess have endo rsed 

this concept.
En ergy C onse rv ation In ves tm en t Pro gra m (ECIP)

This is th e f i f t h y ear o f th is e s s e n tia l prog ram to re du ce en er gy 

co ns um ptio n in a l l of ou r e x is tin g b u il d in g s and u t i l i t i e s sy st em s. The 

program is des ig ned to ac co m plish r e t r o f i t work in o ld e r f a c i l i t i e s on a 

c o s t- e f f e c tiv e b a sis to lo wer en er gy us e le v e ls and to ach ie ve a s i g n i f i ­

cant sa vin gs in u t i l i t y c o s ts .

Dur in g th e h eari n g s on th e FY 1979 MILCON pr og ra m , q u e sti o n s were 

ra is e d as to th e v a lid ity of th e c a lc u la te d sa vin gs of th e ECIP e f ­

f o r t . For th is re as on we re q u est ed th e Defen se A udit S erv ic e (DAS) to 

co nd uc t a review of th e FY 76 th ro ugh FY 78 ECIP. Cop ies o f t h is re view 

w ill be made a v a il a b le to th e co m m itt ee . The DAS re p o rt in d ic a te s some 

pr ob lem a re as p rim a ril y w it h th e f i r s t two y ears of th e Prog ram. Our 

i n i t i a l gu id an ce was ba se d on th e b e s t d o lla r re tu rn from en er gy co ns er va 

tio n p r o je c ts . Wh ile th e o b je c ti v e was to co nse rv e ener gy, th e p ro je c t 

c r it e r i o n was th e s h o rte s t a m o rti z a ti o n p e ri o d . Thi s re s u lte d in a 

prog ram w it h a hig h d o lla r re tu rn b u t a le s s o r en er gy b e n e f it. This 

p o in t was re co gniz ed and on O ct ob er 21 , 1977, I is su e d new gu id an ce 

wh ich in clu ded a number of im proved pro ced ure s in clu d in g p r o je c t ev alu a ­

tio n bas ed on maximum en er gy sa v in g s per $1000 of in v estm en t. Con sequ en t 

ly we b e li e v e th a t begin nin g w it h th e FY 1979 pr og ram a num ber of th e 

e a rly pr ob lem s w il l have be en e li m in a te d . The DAS re vi ew in d ic a te s th a t 

a num ber of ECIP p ro je c ts have be en can c ell ed o r re duce d in scop e fo r 

v a rio u s re aso n s. A cco rd in gly , th e en er gy sa v in g s a re le s s th an th a t 

o r ig in a lly c a lc u la te d . At t h is tim e we are is s u in g a d d it io n a l d ire c ti o n

to th e m ilita r y depar tm ents to str e n g th e n th e ECIP and to e li m in a te th e 

b a sic prob lems id e n tif ie d by th e DAS. As p a rt of th is e f f o r t th e m ilita r y dep ar tm en ts w ill p re p are a co mpl ete re p o rt on t o ta l ECIP e f f o r ts to 

d a te . We expec t to have re v is e d d ata on en er gy sa vin gs by mid-summer 

and w ill pro vid e th is in fo rm ati o n to th e co mmittee as so on as i t is

a v a ila b le .
11

As note d l a s t y e a r, E xec utive Ord er 12003 (Ju ly 20 , 1977) wh ich 

man da tes a 20 p e rce n t decre ase in en er gy us e in e x is ti n g f a c i l i t i e s by 

1985 (a s com pared to 19 75 ), re su lt e d in a ne ed to exte nd th e En ergy 

C onse rv ati on In ves tm en t Pro gra m to FY 1984 a t a t o t a l c o st of ab out $1 .5 

b i ll i o n . We b e li e v e t h is t o ta l pro gram c o st is s t i l l v a li d . In th e 

p a s t fo u r y ears Con gr es s ha s a u th o ri zed and a p p ro p ri a te d $530 m il li o n 

fo r th is wo rk. Thi s y e a r, an a p p ro p ri a ti o n o f $116 m il li o n is re q u est ed 

fo r th is im port ant pr og ra m . As r e t r o f i t s o lu ti o n s become more co mplex , 

we expec t re quir em ents to in c re a se to a pe ak o f ab out $200 m il li o n by FY 

1983. The av er ag e a m o rti z a ti o n p eri o d to d a te is about 5 y ears and th e 

1980 pr og ram pay -b ac k is e sti m ate d a t le s s th an 6 y e a rs.

P o ll u ti o n Ab ate me nt

The c o rre c ti o n o f a i r and w at er p o llu tio n pr ob lem s co n ti n u es to 

re c e iv e str o n g em ph as is and c a re fu l a tte n tio n . The FY 1980 re q u est 

c o n ta in s $3 9. 9 m il li o n fo r a i r p o ll u tio n ab at em en t and $2 13 .9 m il li o n 

fo r w ate r p o llu tio n abat em en t.

We b e li e v e a good jo b ha s be en done in im pr ov in g th e q u a li ty of th e 

en vi ro nm en t o v e ra ll a t m ilita r y i n s t a l l a t i o n s . In th e p a st 11 y e a rs, 

fu ndin g from a l l so urc es fo r t h is work ha s ex ce ed ed $2. 2 b i ll i o n . The 

M ilit a ry Dep artm en ts p la c e a hig h p r i o r it y on p o llu tio n ab atem en t and 

ha ve s tr iv e n to be good n eig h b o rs . Em phasis ha s be en p la ced on o b ta in ­

in g s o lu ti o n s wh ich are ec onom ic al ly e f fe c tiv e and ti m e ly . At tim es th e 

pr og ram ha s be en d i f f i c u l t and co n ti n u es to have pro ble m s. In th e p a st 

11 y e a rs , we have se en numerou s re g u la ti o n ch an ge s and m o d if ic ati o n s by 

th e many F e d e ra l, s t a t e , re g io n a l and lo c a l a u th o r itie s in flu e n c in g th e 

v a rio u s m ilita r y i n s t a l l a t i o n s . Thi s ha s put us in th e p o s itio n of 

tr y in g to h i t a moving t a r g e t. In some case s t h is ha s ca us ed a re d esi g n 

o r a fo llow -o n p ro je c t to c o rre c t th e o r ig in a l pro bl em . In a few c a se s, 

i t ha s be en fou nd th a t a so lu ti o n su c c essfu l a t one lo c a ti o n may n o t be
acceptable in a second location even with very similar circumstances. 

There have been technical design problems, especially for industrial 

facilities such as munitions plants.

The situation has changed little from last y ear wh en I stated that 

we are unable to predict the end of our pol lution a bate ment effort; it 

will proba bly continue into FY 1984. Federal guidelines to meet the 

large requirement calling for be st available wast e water treatment by 

July 1, 1983, should be avail able to permit initial programm ing in

FY 1981.

Real Property Mainte nance

Last year, the Committee expre ssed concern over the need for additional 

emphasis on decreasing the b ackl og of mai ntenance and repair (BMAR), but 

was not in agr eement with the Ho use approach towards stimulating mai ntenance of Defense facilities by denying required construction. We, 

too, share the concern that the backlog is excessive. The current BMAR 

at end FY 78 is almost $2.2 b illi on for the Active Services.

Aust erity in funding for base operations of wh ich real property ma in ­

tenance is a significant part, overseas curre ncy reev aluations and 

effects of inflation are m ajor deterrents to acco mplishing needed main ­

tenan ce and repair work. Also contributing to the bac klog increases are 

the Services' continuing aggr essive efforts to identify and estimate 

facility deficiencies, especially those belo w ground or underwater. We 

anticipate no impro vement in these situations over the next few years.

The real property m aint enan ce floor constrains reprogra ming of funds 

from this area into o ther opera tional activities. The Congressionallyimposed mai ntenance floor, which we fully support, is establi shed at 90
13

p e rc e n t o f program v alu e and en su re s th a t fu nd s re q u este d and su pport ed 

fo r re a l p ro p e rt y m ai nt en an ce w ill be so u t il i z e d . The re is very l i t t l e 

evid ence o f th e S e rv ic e s' reprog ramming su ch fu nds. In r e a l i t y , th e

i

S e rv ic e s ha ve be en fu ndin g su ch work in exce ss o f t h i s flo o r ea ch y e a r.

We w ill con ti n u e ou r managem ent em ph asis to impro ve fu ndin g fo r mainte nance and r e p a ir and to ensu re a c re d ita b le and v a li d re p o rti n g of 

BMAR.

Panama T re aty -R ela te d C o n st ru cti o n

The Panama Ca nal T re aty re q u ir e s m il ita r y c o n s tr u c ti o n in th e Ca nal 

Zone fo r two re aso n s. F i r s t , th e T re aty re q u ir e s re le a s e of sp e c if ie d 

p o rti o n s of a c tiv e U. S. m ilita r y in s ta lla tio n s to The R ep ublic of Panama 

over th e l i f e of th e T re a ty , w it h th e m ajo ri ty o c cu rrin g w it h i t s e n tr y 

in to fo rc e by O ct ob er 1, 1979, and w it h in i t s f i r s t fiv e y e a rs. Th ese 

re le a s e s re q u ir e th e re lo c a tio n of m ilita r y u n its and a c t i v i t i e s to U. S. 

m ilita r y i n s t a l l a t i o n s wh ich w ill be re ta in e d fo r th e l i f e of th e T re aty . 

Se co nd , th e T re aty s t a te s th a t th e Ca nal Zone Government and Panama 

Ca na l Company ca nnot o p e ra te in Panama beyond O ct ob er 1,1 97 9, and p ro v id es 

f o r th e s u b s titu tio n o f a Panama Ca nal Comm ission fo r th e l a t t e r . In 

th e p ro c e ss, v a rio u s U. S. go ve rn m en ta l r e t a i l and community su p p o rt 

s e r v ic e s , h e re to fo re pro vid ed to DoD, w ill ha ve to be assumed by th e 

M il it a ry S e rv ic e s. T h eir re la te d f a c i l i t i e s , fo r th e roost p a r t, w ill 

a ls o be assumed by th e S e rv ic e s.

To accommodate th e m ilita r y re lo c a tio n s and fu n c ti o n a l ass um ptions 

re q u ir e d by O ct ober 1, 1979, FY79 fu ndin g in th e amount of $4 0. 6 m il li o n 

is re q u ir e d . Of th is am ou nt, $1 0.9 m il li o n was a u th o ri ze d by th e De puty 

S e c re ta ry o f Def en se in e a rly Novemb er, usi n g th e a u th o rity in S e c ti o n 

402 o f th e Defen se Age nc ie s t i t l e o f th e an nual M il it a ry C o n str u cti o n

41 -6 38 0 - 7 9 - 2
Authorization Act. The balance is bein g reque sted in the FY79 Supple men ­

tal Budget. Other construction requir ements, totalling $6.0 million, 

are included in the FY80 Budget.

Through a visit to Panama in late January, I have concluded that 

accelerated actions taken to date to commence construction have been 

fully warranted; that other constru ctio n requirements before this Con ­

gress have been well thought out and are compl etel y j ustified and that 

out-year requirements must be expe diti ously identified for the early 

noti fication of the Congress. The $10.9 million already funded will 

permit the essential functional transf ers to be assume d by the Services, 

but will permit only the initiation of construc tion incident to mi litary 

relocations deemed vital to the secur ity of the United States to be 

accomplished. The FY 1979 supplemental funding would complete the rehabilitat ion of facilities required to complete the mil itar y relocations 

essential to satisfying Treaty-day requirements. The $6.0 mi llio n 

requested in the FY80 program wi ll perm it a modes t expansion of personnel 

support at How ard AFB and relocation of certain military activities 

required in the immediate post T rea ty-day period. Trea ty-r elat ed construe 

tion requirements in the out-year are curr entl y unde rgoing defi nition 

and will be validated by a recently comm ence d regional complex master 

plan which will ensure optimum utiliza tion of existing plant commensurate 

with our remaining planne d tenure in Panama.

NATO Infrastructur e

For this year, $150 m illion in a uthoriz atio n and funding is required to finance the United States share of the common funded N ATO Infr astructure Program. This represents a substantial increase from the $90 

millio n requested in FY 1979 and, indeed, is larger than the $90 million 

funding and $120 m illi on in author izat ion grante d last year. One of the 

major reasons for this increase stems from the neces sity to adjust the
15

t o t a l c o st o f p r io r y ears u n li q u id a te d o b li g a ti o n s wh ich we re o r ig in a lly 

o b li g a te d when th e IAU (I n f r a s tr u c tu r e A cc ou nt in g U n it ) r a te to th e U. S. 

d o lla r was a t a much lower and more fa v o ra b le r a te . The IAU is an

agre ed bo ok ke ep in g u n it wh ich is us ed as a common valu e den om in at io n in 

a d ju s ti n g paym en ts and b ala nces be tw een th e v a ri o u s NATO n a ti o n s , and is 

su b je c t to se m i- annual re vi ew and re v a lu a ti o n .

Each r i s e in th e v alu e of th e IAU to th e d o lla r re q u ir e s an upw ard 

adju st m ent o f th e d o lla r o b li g a ti o n s to r e f l e c t th e a c tu a l c u rre n t U.S . 

o b lig a tio n to pay .

The U. S. i s a c tiv e ly purs uin g th e use o f t h is prog ram to th e max imum in o rd e r to s a t is f y U. S. Eu ropean c o n str u c ti o n re q u ir em en ts . I t is 

ex pec te d th e re fo re th a t demands on I n f r a s tr u c tu r e fu ndin g w ill in c re a se 

s u b ta n tia lly and t h is to o w ill im pa ct on th e FY 1980 re q u e st. We have 

in clu ded in th e FY 1979 su pple m en ta l a re q u e st fo r an a p p ro p ria ti o n of 

$4 6. 2 m il li o n f o r t h is purp ose .

Ano th er f a c to r o f some s ig n ific a n c e in t h is y e a r 's in cre ased re q u est 

is th e g re a te r r a te o f ex ecu ti o n by th e v a rio u s h o st- n a ti o n s in acco mp lis h in g ap pr ov ed in f r a s tr u c tu r e p r o je c ts . The r a te o f such com ple tions 

ha s in cre ased w it h a co nco m itan t in c re a se in th e U. S. r e s p o n s ib ility to 

pay i t s sh are o f su ch co mpl eted p r o je c ts .

In co ns on an ce w it h th e NATO Long Term Def en se Pro gra m and o th e r 

a llia n c e i n i t i a t i v e s , th e Ma jor NATO commanders have id e n tif ie d an In ­

f r a s tr u c tu r e prog ram re quir em ent th a t is c o n sid era b ly la rg e r th an th e 

c u rre n t s lic e grou p in o rd er to meet th e grow ing th r e a t o f th e Warsaw 

P a c t. Many of th e ite m s in cl uded re p re se n t U. S. i n i t i a t i v e s to fund 

more p ro je c ts un de r th e A ll ia n c e , ra th e r th an in th e DoD m ilita r y co ns tr u c tio n pr og ram , i f i t is eco nom ic ally b e n e f ic ia l to do so . The 

$150 m il li o n r e f l e c t s th e U. S. comm ittme nt to t h is fiv e y ear s l i c e gr oup.
16

I will cover this topic in greater detail in my separate statement on

construction in Europe.

Fami ly Hous ing

For FY 1980, the Departmen t of De fens e Family Housing Program 

requires an appropri atio n of about $1.7 billion, the same level as our 

request for FY 1979. The FY 1979 level was main tained because this 

program includes only operation, maintenan ce, leasing, debt payment and 

other minor support costs. It does, however, constitute the largest 

single element in the military construction request.

As I have indica ted to you in the past, the D epartment of Defense 

no longer has a large family housi ng deficit. Rather, deficits are 

effected when missi on changes bring p ersonnel strength increases.

Because of this, and the decision to defer capital investment where 

possible, new construct ion has been omitte d from this year's request. 

Similarly, we do not plan any improvement prog ram for the existing 

inventory w ith FY 1980 funds.

The FY 1980 request recognizes a cont inuing increase in utilit y 

and other operational costs, coupled with the new units coming into the 

inventory. We are continuing the program initi ated last year to reduce 

the mainte nanc e defic ienc y to a m anag eabl e level by the end of FY 1982.

Last year, Congr ess directed the D epartment of Defense to test the 

feasibility of metering the utilities consu med by occupants of mi litary 

family housin g units and a billing system to charge such occupants for 

use above a "n or m" . Certain delays in d evelopi ng the systems to be used 

in the test, and in installing the meters, have caused us to miss some
17

of the earlier mile ston e dates. Althoug h all of the event dates in the

mileston e schedule delineated in the Arme d Services Committee Confere nce

Report cannot be met, we are moving ahead with the test and fully expect 

to be able to pr ovid e the final report on feasibility to the concerned

Committees by Marc h 1, 1980. I advised the committees of this situa tion 

in my letter of D ecember 20, 1978.

Homeowners Assistan ce Progra m

The H omeowne rs Assistance Progra m provid es financial assistan ce to 

Departme nt of Defense military and civilian home owners whose homes are 

located in areas where real estate markets are depre ssed by base closures 

and realignments. The Army, as the De partmen t of Defense execu tive agency, 

provides assis tanc e to a homeowner in one of two forms, namely; (1) rei mbursement for loss resulting from p rivate sale or mortgage foreclosures; 

or, (2) governme nt purchase of the home.

Ther e will be sufficient unoblig ated funds carried over at the end 

of F Y 1979, plus anticipa ted receipts duri ng the y ear to finance the 

actions taken to date. The p robability o f addition al real ignments from 

studies curr entl y bein g conducted dict ates the $5 millio n request in FY 

1980 to preclude the potent ial of funding shortfalls.

Unac comp anied Personnel H ousing and Community Facilities

The troop housing progra m for FY 1980, whi ch covers new construc tion and mode rniz atio n, requires appr opriation of $188.9 million.

This is about $13 m ill ion great er than the request for FY 1979. The

emphasis on the housing programs is in keeping with the Department of 

Defense goal of assuring that all m ember s of the Armed Services are 

prov ided adequate housing. This year's request will provide 9,716 spaces 

through new construct ion of unacco mpan ied perso nnel enlisted quarters and
18

8,536 spaces through mode rniza tion of ex isti ng quarters; additionally, the 

program will permit construction of 96 un accompa nied personnel officer 

quarters and mo dern izat ion of 60 spaces. Combine d w ith new or mode rniz ed 

dining facilities totaling some $21 million and othe r personnel and 

administrative support facilities, good progress is being made in pro vid ­

ing support facilities required by the M ilitary Departments. The total 

request for troop housing and community facilities is $283.2 million; 

including $7.1 million for facilities associated with Korea relocation

act ivities.

Base Re align ment s

Because the Congres s has expressed vital interest in actions affecting 

Department of Defense military installations, I would like to summarize 

what has transpired in this area during the p ast year.

On April 26, 1978, the D epartment of De fens e announced candidate realignment studies and actions at 85 militar y installations and activities in 

the U.S. The proposals, if implemented upon completion of the necessary 

studies, could reduce annual Defense costs by more than $337 million and 

eliminate 14,600 mili tary and 8,600 civil ian positions. The objective of 

these prudent managem ent actions is to reduce non-essential Defense 

expenditures so that the savings can be used for higher priority needs, 

including increased combat effect iveness and readiness. A number of 

minor realignment action s are already being implemented, and we expect 

that all decisi ons resulting from o utst andi ng majo r realignment studies 

initiated in 1976 and 1978 will be annou nced in the next few months. 

Continuing C ongr essi onal interest, as reflected in numerous references 

in hearings, conf eren ce reports, etc., indica ted the desire of the 

Congress that DoD continue action to reduce its activities in the Na ­

tional Capital Region (NCR). As a result, in December 1977, the Deputy 

Secret ary of Defense establ ished new five ye ar goals for the Military
I

19

Dep artm en ts and Defen se Age nc ie s to re du ce t h e i r pre se n ce and v acate 

appro xim at ely two m il li o n sq uare f e e t of a d m in is tr a ti v e sp ac e in th e 

NCR. The o b je c ti v e s are to :

1. d e c e n tr a liz e Def en se a c t i v i t i e s from th e NCR,

2. re duce paym ents fo r non-DoD c o n tr o ll e d a d m in is tr a ti v e

sp ac e in th e NCR, and

3. in c re a se th e u t i l i z a t i o n of e x is ti n g in s t a l l a t i o n s

o u ts id e th e NCR.

As p a r t o f t h is pr og ram , th e M il it a ry Dep ar tm en ts ha ve p u b li c ly an no un ced th e s tu d ie s o f a num ber of pro pose d re lo c a tio n s of a c t i v i t i e s from

th e NCR, whi ch , i f im plem en ted upo n com ple tion o f th e n ecess ary s tu d ie s , 

co uld a f f e c t about 5, 50 0 m ilita r y and c iv i l ia n pers o n n el and v a ca te ov er 

one m il li o n sq uare fe e t of b u il d in g sp ace.

O ute r C o n ti n en ta l S h e lf O il and Gas Le ase S ale s

As we advis ed you in e a r l i e r y e a rs, th e in cre ase in th e o i l and ga s 

le a se s a le s pr og ram on th e O ut er C o n ti n e n ta l S h elf c re a te s a co rr esp o n d ­

in g in c re a se in p o te n tia l c o n f lic ts w it h DoD a c t i v i t i e s in th ese c o a s ta l 

w a te rs. The Dep artm en t of th e I n t e r i o r 's le a sin g sc hedule re q u ir e s a 

co n ti n u in g dia lo g u e w it h them to a ssu re th e o p e ra ti o n a l in te g r ity of 

th o se m is si o n s mo st e s s e n tia l to n a ti o n a l s e c u rity . The i n i t i a l d is ­

cu ss io n s be gan in e a rly 1973 bec au se of th e he avy o i l in d u str y in te r e s t 

in th e G ul f of Mexico im m ed ia te ly so uth of th e E g li n /T y n d all A ir Fo rc e 

B as es ' comp lex . N eg o ti ati o n s w it h I n te r io r le ad to th e e x clu sio n from 

th e le a se s a le o f th o se t r a c t s wh ich co ul d have o th erw is e ad v ers e ly 

a ffe c te d th e o p e ra ti o n a l in te g r ity o f th e Nav y's Und er se as L ab ora to ry a t 

Panama C it y , F lo rid a , and th o se of E g li n and T y n d all . In n e g o ti a ti o n s
on a later sale, we were able to have excluded from the offering a 

70-mile wide corridor in the Gulf upon whi ch the Armam ent Developm ent 

and Test Center at Eg lin Air Force Base is t otal ly dependent.

Similar problems were encou ntered in the Outer Continental Shelf 

offshore South ern California involving areas used exte nsively by the

Pacific Missil e Test Center and elements of the Pacific Fleet. As in 

the previous situation, we were able to pe rsua de Interior to eliminate 

tracts in the central core of the Range from the final tract selection.

We are now faced with a new sale in the area offshore Southern California 

that could conceivab ly restrict further our testing and fleet operating 

areas. It the sale is successful, relocation of shore facilities is

likely.

The most important development to date, however, is the renewed 

intense interest of the Departments of En ergy and the Interior in offe ring for lease tracts in the previousl y considered excluded 70-mile wide 

corridor in the Gulf of Mexico west of 86 20' West longitude. The 1974

leases on tracts in the area east of 86° 20'W have now expired wit hout petro-carbons bein g found. While Interior feels that the Air Force 

could now shift its Armament Developm ent and Test Center activities to 

the east, the leasi ng by Interior of two n ew tracts in this otherwise 

free area in 1978 bl ocks out most of the m ore important Egli n Air Force 

Base m issions. Nevert heless, we have agree d w ith Interior to study the 

mission impacts, hazar ds and costs in de pth to determine whether or not 

it is feasible to shift the test missio ns to enable exploration and 

expl oitation of the tracts west of 86° 20' West.

Guard and R eserve Components

The facilities appr opria tion reques t for the Guard and Reser ve 

Components of the Army, Navy, Mari ne Corps and Air Force is $100 million
21

fo r FY 19 80 . Altho ug h lo w er th an in FY 19 79 , th e FY 198 0 req u est sh ou ld

n ot be in te r p r e te d as a la ck o f su pport o f th e Guard and R es er ve F or ce s

pro gr am s, but r a th e r , a p ro p o rti o n a te sh are o f an a u ste r e m ili ta r y

c o n str u c tio n re q u e st.

The Guard and R es er ve Com ponents now c o n s t it u t e ab ou t 30 p ercen t o f

ou r t o t a l fig h t in g fo r c e .' Guard and R es er ve u n it s ar e co n ti n u in g to

r e c e iv e modern a ir c r a f t and eq uip m en t, and i t i s e s s e n t i a l th a t th ey be

p rovid ed th e n ecessa ry f a c i l i t i e s to o p erate and su pport them as w e ll as

to a t t r a c t , r e c r u it and r e ta in th e p erson n el nee ded . The FY 1980 p ro ­

gram ha s be en th orough ly an aly ze d to in su re th a t ea ch p r o je c t i s ab so ­

l u t e ly n ecessa ry to su pport a ssig n e d m is sio n s a t lo c a t io n s th a t have

dem on st ra te d a c a p a b ility and w illin g n e s s to accep t th e c h a ll e n g e s o f

th e v a r io u s Guard and R es er ve pr og ra m s. In cl uded in t h is req u est ar e

f a c i l i t i e s fo r in a c t iv e duty and an nu al tr a in in g , m ai nte nan ce and oper at io n s f a c i l i t i e s , en er gy c o n se r v a ti o n and p o llu tio n ab at em en t p r o j e c t s ,

and a d m in is tr a tiv e and p erso n n el su pport f a c i l i t i e s . In e s s e n c e , we ar e

p r o v id in g th o se f a c i l i t i e s whi ch w i l l make th e g r e a t e s t c o n tr ib u tio n to

r e a d in e s s and which are e s s e n t i a l fo r th e pro per dev el opm en t, tr a in in g ,

o p e r a tio n , su pport and m ain te nance o f th e Guard and R es er ve Com ponents

to mee t m o b il iz a tio n req u ir em en ts .

D efe n se A gen cie s

The t o t a l A p p ro p ri ati on r eq u est fo r th e D efe n se A gen cie s i s $244.3

m illio n , w hic h i s somewh at la r g e r th an wh at was req u este d and en act ed

l a s t y e a r . The prim e re aso n fo r t h is la r g e r pr og ram, i s th e in co rp o ra ­

tio n o f m u lt i- s e r v ic e f a c i l i t y req u ir em en ts , su ch as th e NATO I n fr a s tr u c ­

tu r e , and DoD Dep en de nt s S ch o o ls programs in th e D ef en se A gen ci es Req ues t

as d ir e c te d by t h is Co mmitt ee . Fo r d e t a ils se e pa ge 40 to o f th e addendum

to t h is sta te m en t.
Conclusion

In conclusion, I am appreciative of this oppo rtun ity to appear

before you today to present the De part ment of D efen se FY 1980 Military

Construction Program, and to discuss subjects in the construction,

housing and install ations areas whic h are of interest to this Committee

I have attempted to provide you w ith a broa d outline of our continuing

efforts to achieve a strong base structure w hich will measurab ly con ­

tribute to the readiness of the Total Forces. We would like to express

our appreciation for the unde rsta ndin g and support of this Committee

which has been so helpful in past years.

I have with me various membe rs of my staff and together we will be

available to answer any questions you may have regarding our proposed

program.

Thank you.
23

ADDENDUM TO STATEMENT

FY 198 0 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATION PROGRAM

($ M i l l i o n )

A c tiv e F o r c e s , M i l i t a r y D e p a rtm e n ts

F a c i l i t y C la s s

O p e r a t i o n a l a n d T r a i n in g 

M a in te n a n c e a n d P r o d u c tio n 

R e s e a r c h a n d D e v elo p m en t 

S u p p ly

H o s p i t a l an d M e d ic a l 

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e 

H o u sin g and Com m un ity 

U t i l i t i e s a n d G ro und Im p ro v em en ts 

R e a l E s t a t e

G e n e ra l S u p p o r t A c t i v i t i e s 

T o t a l D i r e c t P ro g ra m (B u d g e t

A u t h o r i t y a n d A p p r o p r i a ti o n )

Army Na vy A ir F o r c e T o t a l

5 7 .8 6 9 .0 1 5 3 .9 2 8 0 .7

1 0 9 .5 5 9 .4 4 2 .8 2 1 1 .7

2 0 .3 1 0 .3 1 0 3 .1 1 3 3 .7

3 8 .9 2 3 .4 1 6 .5 7 8 .8

2 6 .2 9 .2 3 1 .0 6 6 .4

0 .7 2 8 .8 7 .3 3 6 .8

1 2 9 .2 7 6 .2 7 7 .8 2 8 3 .2

2 3 8 .1 1 8 3 .5 4 3 .5 4 6 5 .1

1 9 .9 1 0 .0 2 .8 3 2 .7

8 1 .7 8 2 .1 6 1 .0 2 2 4 .8

7 2 2 .3 5 5 1 .9 5 3 9 .7 1 ,8 1 3 .9

D e fe n s e A g e n c ie s ( D i r e c t P ro g ra m , B u d g e t A u t h o r i t y & A p p r o p r i a t i o n ) 2 4 4 .3 

G u a rd /R e s e rv e F o r c e s ( D i r e c t P ro g ra m , B u d g et A u t h o r i t y & A p p r o p r i a ti o n 1 0 0 .0

F a m il y H o u sin g

D i r e c t P ro g ra m 1 ,5 8 6 .4 

L e s s F in a n c in g A d ju s tm e n ts * j g . 4 

B u d g e t A u t h o r i t y j 57 0 0 

P lu s A p p r o p r i a t i o n a p p l i e d t o D e b t R e d u c tio n 1 2 3 .4 

A p p r o p r i a t i o n 1 6 9 3 4

Hom eo w ne rs A s s i s t a n c e

D i r e c t P ro g ra m 11 2

L e s s F in a n c in g A d ju s tm e n ts and R e im b u rs e m e n ts 6 .2

B u d g e t A u t h o r i t y (a n d A p p r o p r i a t i o n ) 5 , 0

A c tiv e F o r c e s

M i l i t a r y D e p a r tm e n ts 

D e fe n s e A g e n c ie s

G u a rd /R e s e rv e F o r c e s

F a m il y H o u sin g

Hom eo wne rs A s s i s t a n c e

G ra nd T o t a l

D i r e c t

P ro g ra m

B u d g et

A u t h o r i t y A p p r o p r i a t i o n

1 ,8 1 3 .9 1 ,8 1 3 .9 1 ,8 1 3 .9

2 4 4 .3 2 4 4 .3 2 4 4 .3

1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0

1 ,5 8 6 .4 1 ,5 7 0 .0 1 ,6 9 3 .4

1 1 .2 5 .0 5 .0

3 ,7 5 5 .8 3 ,7 3 3 .2 3 ,8 5 6 .6

E n c lo s u r e 1
Encl osu re 2

Prop os ed C o n st ru cti o n in Majo r C ate g o ri es of F a c i l i t i e s A ct iv e

Forc es (T it le I , I I , I I I , IV)

The Act iv e Forc es p o rti o n of th e M il it a ry C o n str u cti o n A ppro pri ati on 

Pro gra m fo r F is c a l Ye ar 1980 t o ta l s $1 ,814 b i ll i o n fo r th e th re e 

M il it a ry Dep artm en ts and $2 44 .3 m il li o n fo r th e Defen se A gen ci es . This 

p o rti o n of th e program is r e la te d to th e re g u la r m ilita r y est ab li sh m en t 

and pro vid es fo r f a c i l i t i e s and in s ta lla tio n s n ecess ary to meet o p e rati o n a l 

l o g is ti c a l and o th er m is si on re quir em ents of th e th re e M il it a ry Dep artm en ts 

and Defen se A ge nc ie s, o th e r th an fa m il y housi ng. Fo r purp ose s of ea sy 

summ ation, we have grou pe d th e t o ta l re q u est in to nin e st an d ard D epart ­

ment of De fens e c a te g o rie s . I would lik e to d e sc ri b e th e p rin c ip a l 

item s conta in ed in ea ch of th e se c a te g o rie s fo r th e in d iv id u a l D ep ar tm en ts . 

I w ill om it re fe re n ce to th e Defen se Age nc ie s in th ese d e s c rip tio n s ,

ina sm uch as I w il l sum marize t h e i r re quir em ents s e p a ra te ly a t th e end of 

t h is p re s e n ta ti o n . The f i r s t of th e c a te g o rie s is :

O p era ti onal and T ra in in g $2 80 .7 m il li o n

The o p e ra ti o n a l f a c i l i t i e s co n ta in e s s e n tia l a ir b a s e , f l e e t op era ­

tio n s su p p o rt , co m m un icat io ns , s e c u rity , command and c o n tr o l, and o th er 

o p e ra ti o n a l f a c i l i t i e s n ecessary to su pport th e com bat re ad in ess ca pa b i l i t y of th e S e rv ic e s. Under tra in in g f a c i l i t i e s we se ek to pro vid e 

th e in s tr u c tio n a l and tr a in in g f a c i l i t i e s n ecessary to th e de ve lopm en t 

o f not on ly th e b a sic s o ld ie r , sea ma n, airm an and m ari ne, b u t a ls o th e 

te c h n ic a l and p ro fe s sio n a l s p e c ia lis ts re q u ir e d to o p e ra te , m ain ta in and 

r e p a ir th e com plex to o ls of mod ern wa r.

Army - $5 7. 8 m il li o n

Navy - $69. 0 m il li o n

A ir Forc e - $1 53 .9 m il li o n

Item s in cl uded in th e Army req u est fo r o p e ra ti o n a l f a c i l i t i e s 

in clu d e 20 p ro je c ts a t 14 lo c a ti o n s in th e sum of $2 9. 4 m il lio n , th e

mo st s ig n if ic a n t of wh ich is th e So uth Wharf R en ovat io n in th e amo unt of
25

$1 1. 2 m il li o n a t Sunny P o in t, Nor th C a ro li n a . T ra in in g f a c i l i t i e s t o t a l 

$28. 4 m il li o n fo r 13 p ro je c ts a t s ix lo c a ti o n s and in clu d e $5. 8 m il li o n 

fo r XM1 F a c i l i t i e s in Germany.

Of th e $69. 0 m il li o n in cl uded in t h is cate g o ry fo r Nav y, $4 5.5 

m il li o n is fo r o p e ra ti o n a l f a c i l i t i e s and $2 3.5 m il li o n fo r tr a in in g 

f a c i l i t i e s . Of th e $4 5. 5 m il li o n fo r o p e ra ti o n a l f a c i l i t i e s , $3. 3 

m il li o n w ill p ro v id e a i r f i e l d f a c i l i t i e s a t two i n s t a l l a t i o n s ; $5.4 

m il li o n fo r co mmun ication f a c i l i t i e s a t se ve n i n s t a l l a t i o n s ; $9. 6 m il li o n 

fo r o p e ra ti o n a l f a c i l i t i e s a t seve n i n s t a l l a t i o n s ; and $2 7. 2 m il lio n fo r 

w a te rfro n t f a c i l i t i e s a t six i n s t a l l a t i o n s . T ra in in g f a c i l i t i e s t o ta l 

$2 3.5 m il li o n a t se ve n i n s ta lla tio n s .

The A ir Fo rc e prog ram fo r o p e ra ti o n a l and tra in in g f a c i l i t i e s 

t o ta l s $1 53 .9 m il lio n , of which $1 33 .9 m il li o n is fo r o p e ra ti o n a l fa c ­

i l i t i e s and $2 0. 0 m il li o n is fo r tr a in in g f a c i l i t i e s . S ig n ific a n t item s 

w it h in th e o p e ra ti o n a l f a c i l i t i e s p o rti o n in clu d e $1 2.5 m il li o n fo r 

a i r f i e l d p ro te c ti v e f a c i l i t i e s a t two i n s t a l l a t i o n s ; $1 3. 0 m il li o n fo r 

minimum e s s e n tia l a i r c r a f t o p e ra ti o n a l f a c i l i t i e s a t c o ll o c a te d o p e ra tin g b a se s; $3. 7 m il lio n fo r a i r c r a f t in str u m en t la n d in g /n a v ig a ti o n a l 

f a c i l i t i e s a t 13 i n s t a l l a t i o n s ; $1 7.7 m il li o n fo r a i r f i e l d pa vement and 

lig h tin g im prov em ents a t nin e i n s t a l l a t i o n s ; $4.4 m il li o n fo r comm unic ations re la te d f a c i l i t i e s ; $5 .3 m il li o n fo r ch em ical w arf are c o lle c tiv e p ro te c ti o n a t v ari o u s o v ers eas lo c a tio n s ; $2 3. 0 m il li o n fo r fo u r 

re g io n a l o p e ra ti o n s c o n tr o l f a c i l i t i e s ; $1 1.1 m il li o n fo r sp e c ia l o p era ­

tio n s sp ac e tr a c k and j o in t s u rv e ill a n c e sy stem f a c i l i t i e s a t v a rio u s 

i n s t a l l a t i o n s ; $1 1. 8 m il li o n fo r a d d it io n s to an A ir F re ig h t Ter m in al 

and a Log A ir F re ig h t P ro cess in g F a c il i ty ; $5.5 m il li o n fo r a com bat 

o p e ra ti o n s c e n te r; $4.4 m il li o n fo r th re e f l ig h t o p e ra ti o n s f a c i l i t i e s ; 

$7 .9 m il li o n s fo r v a ri o u s o p e ra ti o n a l f a c i l i t i e s ; $3.3 m il li o n fo r a i r ­

c r a f t su p p o rt f a c i l i t i e s ; $6.0 m il li o n fo r a quic k tu rn f a c i l i t y ; $3.2 

m il li o n fo r te c h n ic a l s i t e f a c i l i t i e s ; and $1.2 m il li o n fo r an a i r c r a f t 

m unit io ns s to ra g e /l o a d f a c i l i t y . In a d d it io n , tr a in in g f a c i l i t i e s
26

totaling $20.0 millio n will provi de 11 flight simulator facilities, and 

one security training facility.

Maintenance and Produ ctio n Facilities $211.7 million

The category includes all types of facilities necessary for the 

production, mainte nance and repair of milita ry hardware, including field 

and depot mainte nance shops and hangars, shor e-bas ed marine maintenance 

facilities for the fleet, and production, assembly and maintenance 

facilities for rockets, missiles and various types of conventional

ammun iti on.

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

Army - $109.5 million

Navy - $ 59.4 million

Air Force - $ 42.8 million

Items in the Army request include 27 projects at 16 locations and include a $15 million Consolida ted Maintenance Facilit y at Fort Riley,

Kansas; tactical equipm ent shops for $23.6 m illi on at Forts Polk and 

Stewart and $23.4 millio n for facility modi ficat ions in Germany.

Significa nt items in the Navy request for mainte nanc e and p rod uction facilities include $12.6 million related to aircraft maintenance at

four installations; $28.9 million for ships maint enan ce facilities at 

six installations; $10.5 million for automotive maintenanc e facilities 

at two installations; and $7.4 m ill ion for other m aintenance facilities

at four installations.

The construction requested by the Air Force in this category will 

provide $18.0 million for aircraft maintenance facilities at 11 locations; $14.2 million for air-l aunc hed cruise missile facilities; $3.3 

million for three avionics maintenanc e facilities; $2.2 million for 

aircraft fuel system mainten ance facilities at two installations; $2.2 

million for a munitions mainten ance storage facility; and $2.9 million for
27

fiv e in d iv id u a l f a c i l i t i e s in clu d in g a r e fu e le r v e h ic le m ai nt en an ce 

sh op, a n o n d e str u cti v e in sp e c ti o n sh op , a su p p o rt eq uipm en t f a c i l i t y , an 

a d d it io n to an e le c tr o n ic co u n te r m ea su res comp lex , and a p re c is io n 

measuremen t eq uipm en t la b o ra to ry .

R es ea rc h and Develop me nt F a c i l i t i e s $1 33 .7 m il li o n

T his p o rti o n of th e c o n str u c ti o n program is n ecessary to s u s ta in 

our searc h fo r new and improved weapons sy st em s. The Dep artm en t co ns id e r s th e p ro je c ts in clu ded h e re in to be h ig h ly e s s e n tia l and v i t a l to 

th e m ai nte nan ce o f U. S. le a d e rs h ip in th e de ve lopm en t and te s tin g of 

new d efe n se sy st em s.

The t o ta l s of th e S e rv ic e s' re q u e sts fo r R&D f a c i l i t i e s a re :

Army - $2 0. 3 m il li o n

Navy - $1 0. 3 m il li o n

A ir Fo rc e - $1 03 .1 m il li o n

The Ar my's re q u est in clu d e s 13 p r o je c ts a t e ig h t lo c a tio n s , th e 

mo st s ig n if ic a n t of wh ich is $5.7 m il lio n fo r th e Human F a c to rs E ng in ee rin g L abora to ry a t Ab erdeen Pro vin g Gr ound, Marylan d.

The N av y' s re q u e st un de r t h i s cate g o ry in clu d es $1 0. 3 m il lio n fo r 

s ix p r o je c ts a t fiv e i n s t a l l a t i o n s and in clu d e s $8.8 m il li o n fo r an 

oc ea n s u rv e ill a n c e f a c i l i t y .

The A ir Forc e Pro gra m fo r RDT&E f a c i l i t i e s c o n ta in s a t o t a l o f nin e 

p ro je c ts fiv e of wh ich pro vid e $7 8. 2 m il li o n fo r sp ac e s h u ttle f a c i l i t i e s . 

In a d d it io n , th e prog ram p ro v id es $9.8 m il li o n fo r a f l ig h t c o n tr o l 

de ve lo pm en t la b o ra to ry ; $8 .6 m il li o n fo r a sy stem s m an ag em en t/en gin ee ring 

f a c i l i t y ; $5 .4 m il li o n fo r th e a lt e r a t io n o f MX ro ck et motor t e s t f a c i l i t ­

i e s ; and $1. 1 m il li o n fo r a sy stem s g en era te d e le ctr o m ag n eti c p u ls e t e s t 

f a c i l i t y .

Su pp ly F a c i l i t i e s $7 8. 8 m il li o n

Thi s cate g o ry in clu d es v a rio u s su pply f a c i l i t i e s , in clu d in g fu e l 

s to ra g e , am mun ition s to ra g e , cold s to ra g e , dep ot and a rse n a l w ar eh ou se s 

and open sto ra g e f a c i l i t i e s .
Army

Navy

A ir F orc e

28

$ 3 8 .9 m illio n

$ 2 3 .4 m illio n

$ 16.5 m illio n

The Arm y's r e q u e s t in c lu d e s 22 p r o j e c t s a t te n l o c a t i o n s , th e m os t 

s i g n i f i c a n t o f w hi ch a re th e $ 5 .4 m illio n T ra n s fe r Are a E xpansi on a t 

Su nn y P o in t, N ort h C a ro lin a ; an d th e $5.1 m illio n Am mun iti on Uploa d 

p r o j e c t in Germ any .

The N avy's re q u e s t in c lu d e s $ 4 .3 m illio n f o r m i s s i l e m ag azin es;

$ 9.1 m illio n fo r a g e n e ra l w are house a t Sa n D ie go; an d $ 1 0 .0 m illio n f o r 

o th e r s to ra g e f a c i l i t i e s a t fo u r i n s t a l l a t i o n s .

The $16.5 m illio n re q u e s te d f o r su p p ly f a c i l i t i e s f o r th e A ir F o rc e 

w i l l p ro v id e $12.4 m illio n f o r m u n it io n s s to r a g e f a c i l i t i e s ; $ 2 .6 m illio n 

f o r an a d d itio n to a c r y p to lo g ic d ep o t v a u l t ; $ 1 .0 m illio n f o r m u n it io n s 

f a c i l i t i e s a t on e l o c a tio n ; an d $ 0.5 m illio n f o r a r e p a ir a b le a s s e t s cont r o l c e n te r .

H o s p it a l an d M edic al $ 6 6 .4 m illio n

R epla ce m en t an d im pr ov em en t o f o u r ou tm od ed an d o b s o le s c e n t m ed ic al 

p la n t c o n ti n u e s as on e o f ou r u rg e n t p r i o r i t i e s . A g r e a t p o r tio n o f th e 

DoD h o s p ita l an d m ed ic al f a c i l i t i e s w er e c o n s tru c te d fro m 25 to 50 y e a rs 

ag o and o v er th e y e a rs hav e bec om e in c r e a s in g ly in a d e q u a te to th e nee ds 

o f mod ern m e d ic in e . In F is c a l Y ea r 19 80 , we hav e in c lu d e d a s u b s t a n t i a l 

in c re m e n t to c o n ti n u e th e re p la c e m e n t o f th e m os t in a d e q u a te o f su ch

f a c i l i t i e s .

The t o t a l s o f th e S e r v ic e s ' r e q u e s ts f o r su ch f a c i l i t i e s a r e :

Army $ 2 6 .2 m illio n

Navy $ 9 .2 m illio n

A ir F o rc e $ 3 1 .0 m illio n

A rm y's r e q u e s t f o r h o s p ita l an d m ed ic al f a c i l i t i e s in c lu d e s 12

p r o j e c t s a t n in e l o c a t i o n s , in c lu d in g $ 1 2 .2 m illio n f o r re n o v a tio n o f 

th e F o rt B l i s s , T ex as h o s p i t a l .
29

N av y 's r e q u e s t f o r h o s p ita l an d m e d ic a l f a c i l i t i e s in c lu d e s $ 3 .3 

m illio n f o r a m e d ic a l an d d e n ta l c l i n i c a t K in gs Bay , GA, an d $ 5 .9 

m illio n f o r a m e d ic a l c l i n i c a t Sa n D ie g o , CA.

W it h in th e D epart m ent o f th e A ir F o rc e r e q u e s t, $ 2 8 .3 m illio n i s 

f o r th e m o d ific a tio n o f two co m p o sit e m e d ic a l f a c i l i t i e s ; an d $ 2.7 

m illio n w i l l p ro v id e an a e ro m e d ic a l s ta g in g f a c i l i t y a t an o v e rs e a s 

lo c a tio n .

A d m in is tr a tiv e F a c i l i t i e s $ 3 6 .8 m illio n

T h is c a te g o ry in c lu d e s v a r io u s a d m in is tr a tiv e f a c i l i t i e s su ch as 

h e a d q u a r te r s , sq u a d ro n o p e r a tio n s , an d s i m i l a r f a c i l i t i e s . The t o t a l s 

o f th e S e r v ic e s ' r e q u e s ts f o r su ch f a c i l i t i e s a r e :

Army - $ 0 .7 m illio n

Nav y - $ 2 8 .8 m illio n

A ir F o rc e - $ 7 .3 m illio n

A rm y's r e q u e s t p ro v id e s two a d m in is tr a tiv e f a c i l i t i e s a t two lo c a ­

t i o n s .

The N av y 's r e q u e s t in c lu d e s $ 1 0 .0 m illio n f o r an e n g in e e rin g an d 

man ag em en t b u ild in g a t N o rfo lk ; $ 5 .5 m illio n f o r an au to m ate d d a ta 

sy ste m f a c i l i t y a t Q u a n ti c o ; $ 3 .2 m illio n f o r o th e r a d m in is tr a tiv e 

f a c i l i t i e s a t two i n s t a l l a t i o n s ; an d $ 1 0 .0 m illio n f o r TRIDENT co mmun ity 

im pact a s s is ta n c e a t B angor.

The A ir F o rc e r e q u e s t f o r a d m in is tr a tiv e f a c i l i t i e s w i l l p ro v id e 

$ 0 .8 m illio n f o r an a i r c r a f t m ain te n a n c e c o n tr o l f a c i l i t y ; $ 1.1 m illio n 

f o r a l t e r a t i o n o f a m ajo r command h e a d q u a r te r s ; an d $ 5 .4 m illio n f o r a 

d a ta p ro c e s s in g f a c i l i t y .

H ousi ng an d Comm unity F a c i l i t i e s $283.2 m illio n

U na cc om pa ni ed p e rs o n n e l h o u sin g i s on e o f th e m os t im p o rta n t an d 

v i t a l re q u ir e m e n ts in o u r c o n s tr u c tio n pro gra m . We re c o g n iz e th e im porta n c e o f t h i s it em in th e c a r e e r r e t e n t i o n o f t r a i n e d an d q u a l i f ie d 

p e rs o n n e l in th e m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e , an d b e lie v e i m p l i c i t l y t h a t im pr ov ed 

h o u sin g w i l l p ro v id e b o th im m edia te an d lo n g -ra n g e b e n e f i t s th ro u g h

4 1 -6 3 8 0 - 7 9 - 3
in c re ased re e n li s tm e n t, h eig hte ned m ora le , and re duce d re cru it m en t 

c o sts . The S e rv ic e s' prog rams in F is c a l Ye ar 1980 a re :

Army - $1 29 .2 m il li o n

Navy - $ 76 .2 m il li o n

A ir Fo rc e - $ 77 .8 m il li o n

The un accomp anied p ers o n n el hous in g and community f a c i l i t i e s pr o

j e c ts in ea ch of th e Dep artm en t pr og rams are sum ma riz ed as fo ll o w s:

Unacc om pan ied Pers onnel Ho using

New C o n st ru cti o n M od er niz at io n

Sp ac es M il li o n s Sp ac es M il li o n s

O ffic e r Housing

Army — $ " 60 $ 0 .4

A ir Fo rc e 96 $ 2.6 - - $ --

T ota l 96 $ 2 .6 60 $ 0.4

E n li ste d Housing

Army 4, 86 2 $6 5.4 881 $ 4.8

Navy 3,56 7 42. 0 423 15 .4

A ir Fo rc e 1,28 7 $1 3.1 7, 23 2 $4 5.2

T ota l 9,7 16 120.5 8, 53 6 65 .4

R ela te d F a c il i ti e s

Army

Korea Rea lign m en t $ 7. 1 m il li o n

14 A d m in is tr a ti v e P ro je c ts $22. 0 m il li o n
Din in g F a c i l i t i e s

No. of

P ro je c ts M il li o n s

Army 6 $ 9. 1

Navy 3 $ 8.0

A ir Fo rc e 3 $ 3.9

T ota l 12 $2 1.0

Community Sup po rt F a c il i ti e s

No. of

P ro je c ts M il li o n s

Army 8 $2 0. 4

Navy 5 $1 0.8

A ir Fo rc e 17 $1 1.1

T o ta l 30 $4 2. 3

Fo r community f a c i l i t i e s , th e Ar my's prog ram in clu d e s an a th l e ti c 

f a c i l i t y in th e amount o f $1 2. 2 m il li o n a t th e M il it a ry Academy.

In clu ded w it h in th e N av y' s pr og ram fo r community f a c i l i t i e s is 

$1 0. 6 m il li o n fo r community f a c i l i t i e s a t Ki ngs Bay and $0.2 m il lio n fo r 

a sb e sto s remov al a t one i n s t a l l a t i o n .

The A ir Fo rc e re q u e st in clu d e s $6.3 m il li o n fo r a d d it io n s and 

a lte r a tio n s fo r 13 f i r e s ta tio n s ; $1.7 m il li o n fo r th e a d d it io n and 

a lt e r a t io n o f r e c re a tio n a l f a c i l t i e s ; $1 .5 m il li o n fo r a gym nasium;

$0. 9 m il li o n fo r m o d if ic ati o n o f a ch ap el c e n te r; and $0.7 m il li o n 

fo r a s e c u rity p o li c e o p e ra ti o n s f a c i l i t y .

U t i l i t i e s and Gro und s Im prov em ents $4 65.1 m il li o n

Thi s p o rti o n o f th e prog ram p ro v id es fo r ex pan si ons and a d d it io n s to 

u t i l i t y sy stem s and ro ad n e ts a t v a ri o u s U. S. and o v ers eas lo c a tio n s . A 

s ig n if ic a n t el em en t of th is y e a r 's , as in l a s t y e a r 's , prog ram is d ir e c te d 

towar d f u r th e r im pl em en tin g th e n a ti o n a l p o lic ie s fo r c o n tr o llin g w ate r and 

a i r p o llu tio n and fo r en er gy c o n se rv a ti o n . The M il it a ry Dep artm en t t o ta ls 

in t h is cate g o ry are as fo ll o w s:
32

Army

Navy -

$2 38 .1 m il li o n

$1 83 .5 m il li o n

A ir Fo rc e - $ 43. 5 m il li o n

In co mpl ianc e w ith fe d e ra l, s t a te , and lo c a l a i r and w at er p o llu tio n

c o n tr o l re g u la ti o n s and E xec utive Ord er 11752 (19 December 19 73 ),

th e re is in cl uded a t o ta l of $2 53 .8 m il li o n fo r 108 p o llu tio n ab at em en t 

p ro je c ts as a c o n ti n u a ti o n of th e pr og ram begun ele ven y ears ago to e li m in a te 

p o ll u ti o n a t ou r m ilita r y i n s t a l l a t i o n s . A ll of th ese p ro je c ts have been 

coord in ate d w it h th e Env iron m en ta l P ro te c ti o n Age ncy.

The p o ll u tio n ab atem en t p ro je c ts in ea ch of th e Dep artm en t prog rams

are sum marized as fo ll o w s:

POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM

A ir P o ll u ti o n Abate me nt Water P o ll u ti o n Ab ate me nt

$M il. P ro je c ts I n s ta lla tio n s $M il. P ro je c ts I n s ta lla tio n s

Army 34 .4 14 11 11 6.6 50 45

Navy 4.8 4 4 81 .8 34 31

A ir Fo rc e 0.7 _1 _1 15 .5 _5 _5

T ota l 39 .9 19 16 21 3.9 89 81

As p a rt of th e Dep artm ent of D efe n se's en er gy co n se rv ati o n pr og ram , 

a m u lt iy ear en er gy co n se rv ati o n in ves tm ent prog ram ha s been e s ta b lis h e d .

The FY 1980 M il it a ry C onst ru cti o n Pro gra m in clu d es th e f i f t h year of 

th is c o n serv ati o n in ves tm en t pr og ram . P ro je c ts in th is pro gram are s e l f -

am o rt iz in g , avera gin g le s s th an fiv e y e a rs, and are li m it e d to

r e tr o f i t t i n g o f e x is tin g f a c i l i t i e s so as to ach ie ve har d en er gy sa v in g s.

The en er gy c o n se rv a ti o n in ves tm en t p r o je c ts in ea ch of th e a c ti v e S erv ic e 

prog rams are sum ma riz ed as fo ll o w s:

En erg y C onse rv ation Program

$ M il li ons P ro je c ts I n s ta lla tio n s

Army 45.0 39 29

Navy 46 .7 44 31

Air Fo rce 23. 8 36 36

T o ta l 115.5 119 96
33

The Army 's re q u est in clu d es $1 51 .0 m il li o n fo r p o llu tio n ab at em ent; 

$4 5. 0 m il li o n fo r en er gy c o n serv ati o n p r o je c ts ; and $4 2.1 m il li o n fo r 33 

u t i l i t y p r o je c ts w or ld -w id e.

S ig n if ic a n t item s in clu ded in th e N av y's re q u est fo r u t i l i t i e s 

in clu d e $86. 6 m il li o n fo r p o llu tio n abat em en t; $4 6.7 m il li o n fo r en er gy 

co n se rv a ti o n p r o je c ts ; $2 0.3 m il li o n fo r e l e c t r i c i a l f a c i l i t i e s a t six 

i n s t a l l a t i o n s ; $1 9.4 m il li o n fo r h e ati n g f a c i l i t i e s a t two i n s t a l l a t i o n s ; 

$1 .1 m il li o n fo r sew age f a c i l i t i e s a t Ki ngs Bay; $3. 0 m il li o n fo r w ate r 

f a c i l i t i e s a t fo u r i n s t a l l a t i o n s ; $1.0 m il li o n fo r ro ad s a t Ki ng s Bay; 

and $5.4 m il li o n fo r o th e r u t i l i t y p r o je c ts .

Thi s p o rti o n of th e A ir Fo rc e FY 1980 M il it a ry C o n str u c ti o n Pro gra m 

c o n s is ts of $1 6. 2 m il li o n fo r a i r and w ate r p o llu tio n ab at em ent; $2 3. 8 

m il li o n fo r en er gy c o n serv ati o n p r o je c ts ; and $3 .5 m il li o n fo r two u t i l i t y 

p ro je c ts in v o lv in g th e a lte r a tio n of an e l e c t r i c a l d is tr ib u tio n sy stem 

and an a i r c r a f t s e c u rity sy stem .

Rea l E s ta te $3 2. 7 m il li o n

Thi s p o rti o n of th e prog ram p ro v id es fo r re a l e s ta te a c q u is itio n s .

The D ep ar tm en ts ' re q u e sts in th is c ate g o ry are as fo ll o w s:

Army - $1 9.9 m il li o n

Navy - $1 0. 0 m il li o n

A ir Fo rc e - $ 2 .8 m il li o n

Army 's re q u est in clu d es fiv e p r o je c ts , th e mo st s ig n if ic a n t of 

wh ich is $14 m il li o n fo r la nd a c q u is itio n a t F o rt B lis s , Tex as .

The N av y' s re q u est p ro v id es $1 0. 0 m il li o n fo r th e a c q u is itio n of 

r e s t r i c t i v e us e ea se m en ts a t NAS Ocean a and ALF F e n tr e s s, V ir g in ia .

The A ir Fo rc e re q u est p ro v id es $2. 8 m il li o n fo r th e a c q u is itio n of 

1,45 2 a c re s of la nd a t fo ur i n s t a l l a t i o n s fo r: (1 ) an expand ed c le a r 

zone a t one i n s t a l l a t i o n ; (2 ) a weapo ns sto ra g e are a b u ffe r zo ne; (3 ) 

conti nued ra ng e o p e ra ti o n s in Id ah o; and (4 ) a co mmun ications sy stem s 

eq uipm en t s i t e .
Gen er al Su pp or t A c tiv itie s $2 24 .8 m il li o n

T his p o rti o n of our bu dget re q u e st in clu d e s fu nd s re q u ir e d fo r 

p la n n in g and d esi g n , c o n str u c ti o n of m ilita r y access ro a d s, mino r la nd 

a c q u is itio n un de r $2 5,0 00, and fin a n c in g o f minor c o n str u c ti o n p ro je c ts 

a u th o riz e d un de r st an d in g l e g i s l a ti o n co n ta in ed in 10 USC 26 74 . The

am oun ts re quest ed fo r ea ch of th e M il it a ry Dep artm en ts fo r th ese a c t i v it i e s

are as fo ll ow s:

($ M il li o n s)

E xig en t

Minor

Defen se

Access

Pla nnin g C o n st ru cti o n Roads T o ta ls

Army 53 .7 26 .0 2.0 81 .7

Navy 57. 5 20. 0 4.6 82 .1

A ir Fo rce 47.0 14 .0 22. 61 .0

T o ta ls 15 8.2 60 .0 6 .6 22 4.8

re q u ests fo r g en era l su p p o rt are r e la tiv e ly mo dest and sim il a r

to l a s t y e a r 's re q u e sts . The re q u e sts fo r e x ig en t minor c o n str u c ti o n 

fu nd s are sm al l in m ag nitude when com pared w it h o th e r el em en ts of th e 

t o ta l re q u e st; ho we ver, we co n sid er th ese fu nd s mo st im port ant as th ey 

c o n s titu te th e only im m ed ia te ly a v a ila b le so urc e of fu nd s to fi nance 

th ose r e la tiv e ly sm al l p ro je c ts wh ich in e v ita b ly evid en ce th em se lv es 

duri n g th e f is c a l y e ar. We str o n g ly urg e th e Comm itte e to ap pr ov e them

in t o t a l .

DEFENSE AGENCIES (TITLE IV) $2 44 .3 m il li o n

The re q u e st fo r a c t i v i t i e s of th e Defen se Age nc ies i s $2 44 .3 m il ­

li o n fo r new c o n str u c ti o n , wh ich in clu d e s $5.3 m il li o n fo r minor cons tr u c tio n and $2 0. 0 m il li o n fo r th e th e S e c reta ry of Defen se Con tin ge nc y

Fun d.
Def en se In v e s tig a tiv e S erv ic e $0.3 m il li o n

The $0.3 m il li o n w il l c o rre c t h e ati n g d e fic ie n c ie s a t th e Def en se 

In v e s tig a tiv e S erv ic e o ffic e s a t F o rt H o la b ir d , M arylan d.

Def en se L o g is ti c Agency $1 6. 6

The $1 6. 6 m il li o n w ill pro vid e fo r 5 c o n str u c ti o n p r o je c ts to 

acq u ir e and improve sto ra g e f a c i l i t i e s a t 5 lo c a ti o n s fo r th e Defen se 

L o g is ti c s Agenc y.

Def en se Mapping Agency $3.4 m il li o n

The Def en se Mapping Agency is re q u esti n g $3 .4 m il li o n fo r an a l ­

te r a tio n p ro je c t in th e Panama Ca nal Zone and a f i r e p ro te c ti o n p r o je c t 

a t t h e i r h e ad q u a rt e rs in B eth esd a, M arylan d.

N ati o n al S e c u rit y Agency $0. 5 m il li o n

The $0. 5 m il li o n re q u est ed by th e N ati o n al S e c u rit y Age ncy w il l 

pro vid e fo r a co mmun ications m od ern iz ati o n p r o je c t a t a c la s s if ie d 

lo c a ti o n o u ts id e th e U ni te d S ta te s .

O ff ic e of th e S e c re ta ry of Def en se $1 85 .3 m il li o n

In clu ded un de r th e O ff ic e of th e S e c re ta ry of Defen se re q u e s t, is 

an a lt e r a t io n p ro je c t a t F o rt B e lv o ir , V ir g in ia fo r $2.8 m il lio n ; $1 50 .0 

m il li o n fo r fi n an c in g th e U. S. sh are of th e NATO I n f r a s tr u c tu r e Pro gra m 

and $7.3 m il li o n d e fic ie n c y fu ndin g fo r th e Hig h En ergy L as er F a c ility 

a u th o riz e d and fu nd ed in FY 197 8. Also bein g re q u est ed is $2 5. 2 m il li o n 

fo r th e O ff ic e o f De pe nd en ts Sch ools wh ich w ill perm it c o n str u c ti o n o f 

13 p r o je c ts a t 13 lo c a ti o n s o u ts id e th e U.S.

Con tin ge nc y Fund $20.0 m il li o n

The Dep artm en t of Def en se is re q u e sti n g $2 0. 0 m il li o n fo r em erg ency 

c o n str u c ti o n a u th o riz a ti o n and fu ndin g fo r th e S e c re ta ry of Defen se to 

pro vid e fo r c o n str u c ti o n deemed v i t a l to th e s e c u rity of th e U ni te d 

S t a te s .

G en er al Sup po rt A c tiv itie s

T his p o rti o n of th e bu dg et re q u est in clu d es $1 4. 0 m il li o n fo r 

pla n n in g and desi gn and $4 .2 m il li o n fo r fu ndin g ex ig e n t c o n str u c ti o n 

p r o je c ts a u th o ri ze d un de r sta n d in g le g is la tio n co n ta in ed in 10 USC 2674.
36

E n c lo s u r e 3

FA MI LY HO US IN G, DEFE NSE

AUT HOR IZAT ION FOR AP PROP RIA TIO N REQUESTED FOR FY 1980 ($ 0 0 0 ):

FA MI LY HO US IN G, DEF ENS E $ 1 ,6 9 3 ,4 2 5 ;

HOMEOWNERS AS SI ST AN CE FUND , DEF ENS E $5 ,0 0 0

FUND ING PROGRAM ($ 000 ) FY 1980

MINOR CONST RUCTI ON 

PLANN ING

$ 3 ,0 0 0 

900

AP PROPRIA TIO N RE QU ES T, CON STRUCT ION 3 ,9 0 0

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OPER ATIN G EXPENSES 

MAINTENANCE

LE ASIN G 

DEBT PAYMENT 

PR IN CI PA L

INT ERE ST AND OTHER EXP ENS E

MIP - CAPEHART AND WHERRY

SE RV IC EM EN 'S MORTGAGE INSU RANCE PREMIUMS

$ 7 2 8 ,4 4 3

7 1 6 ,2 1 6

$ 1 2 3 ,4 2 5 

2 9 ,7 4 4 

1 ,0 6 2 

2 ,0 9 4

1 ,4 4 4 ,6 5 9

104 ,9 41

1 56 ,3 25

TOTAL O&M AND DEBT PAYMENT 

L E SS : RESOURCES AP PL IE D

$ 1 ,7 0 5 ,9 2 5

-1 6 ,4 0 0

AP PR OP RIA TIO N RE QU EST, O&M AND DEBT PAYMENT $ 1 ,6 8 9 ,5 2 5

FA MI LY HO US IN G, DE FE NS E, AP PR OP RIA TIO N REQU EST $ 1 ,6 9 3 ,4 2 5

HOMEOWNERS AS SI ST AN CE PROGRAM 

LE SS : RES OUR CES AP PL IE D

$ 1 1,2 0 0 

-6 ,2 0 0

HOMEOWNERS AS SI ST AN CE FUN D, DE FE NS E, 

AP PR OP RIA TIO N REQUE ST

TOTAL AP PR OP RIA TIO N REQU EST

$ 5 ,0 0 0

$ 1 ,6 9 8 ,4 2 5
37

BUDGET REQUEST ----

Mr. F liakas. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I 

am happy to have the opportunity to present the fiscal year 1980 

military construction program and to discuss some of its details, 

and other construction related matters, such as facilities, resources 

and needs of the Department of Defense.

The fiscal year 1980 appropriations request for m ilitary construction and family housing programs totals $3.8 billion. In fiscal year 

1979, the Department of Defense requested $4,372 billion. Submitted concurrently with the budget, the 1979 request for $239.7 million, which I will insert for the record. Thus, the 1980 request 

reflects a decrease of $515 million from the amount originally 

requested in 1979, and $143.4 million less than the enactment.

A large portion of previously planned military construction programs have been deferred in recognition of the need to restrain 

spending in thoses areas t ha t do not represent an urgent near-term 

defense need.

Our military construction, while less th an optimal, is adequate to 

support the essential missions and operations of the military departm ents and the defense agencies. The budget reflects the decision to defer, or in some cases proceed at a reduced rate of capital 

investment in certain areas of construction needs, which will not 

immediately affect our capabilities for maintaining an overall balanced defense posture.

We have exercised the greatest of care in the selection of projects 

to assure that they are sited at installations which are firm and 

will be needed for the foreseeable future. We believe, therefore, 

that the Fiscal Year 1980 request is an austere, balanced, and 

meaningful program which addresses the most essential military 

construction needs.

Near the beginning of my state ment is a tabulation of the appropriations requested for the various defense components. The program reflects a carefully structured mix of new requirements and a 

major advance in our goal of modernizing or replacing many of the 

older structure s in the inventory.

The division between these major categories is roughly 70 percent devoted to support of current missions and new requirements, 

and about 25 percent allocated to replacement and modernization.

Within the total appropriation requested, some $3.9 billion, about 

'$1.4 billion are allocated to construction within the United States, 

$225 million for general support activities, and about $540 million 

to overseas construction. The overseas total includes $150 million 

as our cost share contribution to NATO infrastruc tures.

The remainder, $1.7 billion, are the military family housing appropriation necessary to finance operations and maintenance, leasing and similar activities for support of family housing worldwide.

Now I would like to address several important segments of this 

yea r’s request which in the past have been a matter of interest to 

the Congress, and which we consider to be essential elements affecting ou r total program.
38

INFLATION

Inflation in the construction industry, fueled principally by materials price increases, continues to decrease the value of our construction dollar. The Engineering News Record published by the 

McGraw-Hill Co., a generally accepted auth ority on construction 

costs, shows an increase of between 7.5 and 8 percent for the period 

December 1977 to December 1978. Materials in general were up about 11 percent in that time 

period, whereas labor was up a little less than 7 percent, with 

unskilled labor increasing a t a fa ster r ate than skilled labor.

The decline in the exchange value of th e dollar against the yen 

and the mark has also had a severe impact on overseas construction projects. Another factor is tha t the civilian construction industry is in a period of high activity. Higher costs have not yet caused 

a slowdown. We have seen this particularly in the fewer number of 

bids received for military construction projects. Costs are higher 

than a year ago. We have based our pricing on the assumption that costs will rise 

7 percent in fiscal year 1979, 6.5 percent in fiscal year 1980, and 6 

percent per annum after that. While we recognize the risk of this 

pricing policy, we believe it preferable to overestimating at a time 

when inflation and budget control are vital issues to all of us.

Senator Laxalt. May I ask a question, please.

Mr. Fliakas, what effect, if any, does the Davis-Bacon Act have in 

this pricing structure?

Mr. Fliakas. We have at times, sir, estimated through analyses 

of studies that have been made principally by such institutions as 

the University of Pennsylvania, for example, that the impact of 

Davis-Bacon, or the influence of Davis-Bacon on military construction is anywhere from 5.0 percent to 15 percent of our cost.

We have participated in an interagency meeting of a group that 

was actually established by the W hite House to review inflationary 

statutes, and cost of doing business. We have raised amendment, or 

revision of Davis-Bacon as a possibility, of being in order. The 

Labor D epartment is also represented on the study group, and they 

also have input to it. At the moment the re has been no indication 

of any change coming from adm inistration.

Senator Laxalt. What do the 5 and 15 percent represent?

Mr. Fliakas. This is a range of costs attributed to Davis-Bacon, 

sir. If Federal projects were not constrained to apply Davis-Bacon, 

it would not have to be budgeted.

Senator Laxalt. Does th at vary by area?

Mr. F liakas. Yes, and also it varies by those areas, for example, 

where there are more open shop competitors or construction companies as opposed to union shops.

Senator Laxalt. Are you getting bet ter bids from open shop 

construction companies as opposed to union shops?

Senator Fliakas. Over the past few years there have been increasingly more bids from open shop contractors, yes, sir. As to 

whether they are better or not, they are still subject, of course, to 

the payment of Davis-Bacon rate s as determined by the Department of Labor.
39

Senator Laxalt. Where do you find that the Davis-Bacon impacts most severely, what geographical area—the Northeast?

Mr. F liakas. Yes. I would say principally the Northeast.

Senator Laxalt. What about the Sun Belt?

Mr. Fliakas. Not as much. There are more open shop contractors in the Sun Belt.

Senator Laxalt. Apart from this study group, there have not 

been any recommendations of what, if anything, we should do with 

Davis Bacon?

Mr. Fliakas. There have been, sir discussions about revision 

rat her than out and out elimination. It is an old act, as you know, 

dating back to 1932. We believe that there are certain parts of it 

that might be subject to revision, or amendment or interpretations, 

for example, with regard to prevailing rates and geographical area 

as opposed to the man ner in which the Department of Labor now 

sets its rates. But nothing as yet has come out of that.

When I say, nothing, nothing has been submitted, to my knowledge, as an Administration position.

Senator Laxalt. Since this, obviously, has a tremendous impact, 

you are talkin g about a lot of money. I wonder if the information is 

available now, or if and when it becomes available, if you would 

provide us with your recommendations, for possibly modifying 

Davis-Bacon. As you know, we are going to be very involved in the 

subject for the next couple of years around here.

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir, we would be very happy to provide to this 

committee the views of this Department. However, of course, we 

would be, in the final submission, dependent on the Office of Management and Budget and the White House to establish a policy for 

the administration, because we have taken the position that in the 

Department of Defense we would, of course, not want to be outfront, or be exempt, or have revisions applicable only to defense 

contracts. We believe that all amendments should affect all firm 

construction.

Senator Laxalt. I have no problem with tha t, and I understand 

your policy problems. All I would like from your people would be 

any time period you want, with Davis-Bacon, or without DavisBacon.

You don’t have to characterize anything. I would like your best 

estim ate of what effect Davis-Bacon has in this field.

Mr. F liakas. All right, sir.

CONSTRUCTION EXECUTION

The Department of Defense has achieved further improvement in 

the early execution of the military construction program. By the 

end of September 1978, 90 percent of the fiscal y ear 1978 military 

construction program was unde r contract award. This compares to 

77 percent in fiscal year 1976, and 89 percent in fiscal year 1977. 

The military departments have done an excellent job, and we have 

commended the Departments for this sustained improvement.

Planning and design funds for th e Active Forces are requested in 

the amount of $172.2 million. These funds will be used principally 

for design of projects that will be submitted for your consideration 

in the fiscal year 1981 and 1982 a nnual programs.
40

Funds have already been committed to the design of most fiscal 

year 1980 projects in response to the Congress desire that design of projects be at about 35 percent completion stage when construction funding is requested. This permits firm cost estimates and assures tha t the project can be advertised for construction in the budget 

year.

ENERGY CONSERVAT ION

This is the fifth year of this essential program to reduce energy consumption in all of our existing buildings and utilities systems. The program is designed to accomplish retro fit work in older facili­ ties on a cost-effective basis to lower energy use levels and to 

achieve a significant savings in utility costs. We have requested the Defense Audit Service to conduct a review of the 1976 through 1978 energy conservation investment program. Copies of this review will be made available to the com­ mittee. The DAS report indicates some problem areas, primarily with the first 2 years of the program. This point was recognized, and I issued new guidance which included a number of improved procedures including project evaluation based on maximum energy 

savings per $1,000 of investment. Consequently, we believe t ha t beginning with the fiscal year 1979 program, a number of the early problems will have been eliminated.Executive Order No. 12003, which mandates a 20-percent decrease in energy use in existing facilities by 1985 resulted in a need to extend the energy conservation investment program to fiscal year 1984 at a total cost of about $1.5 billion. In the past 4 years, Congress has authorized and appropriated $530 million for this work. This year, an appropriation of $116 million is requested for 

this important program.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

The correction of air and water pollution problems continues to 

receive strong emphasis and careful attention. The fiscal year 1980 request contains $39.9 million for air pollution abatement and 

$213.9 million for water pollution abatement. In the past 11 years, funding from all sources for this work has exceeded $2.2 billion. We are unable to predict at this time the end of our pollution abatement effort. It will probably continue into 

1984. Federal guidelines to meet the large requirement calling for best 

available waste water treatm ent by July 1, 1983, should be available next year.

Senator Laxalt. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairm an, in the 

area of pollution?

Senator Huddleston. Certainly.

Senator Laxalt. Have you had any local pressure to spend this 

kind of money around the country?

Mr. Fliakas. Indeed, sir. There are many instances where we 

must tie in with municipal or State systems, and we are guided by both EPA and the Congress in meeting statutory requirements.
41

Senator Laxalt. I understand that. But in spending this kind of 

money, have the pressures generally come from EPA and the Feds, 

as opposed to t he locals?

Mr. Fliakas. I will ask Mr. Marshall to answer that.

Mr. Marshall. Yes, Senator. The legislation that is on the books 

governing both air and water pollution, requires us to meet certain 

conditions at certain times. We are now getting pressure from EPA 

all the time to meet these requirements, more so than we are from 

the local jurisdictions.

Senator Laxalt. This experience on arm s with problems we have 

here particula rly I gather that in the West, with all the pressure 

coming from here. This has been the experience of DOD as well?

Mr. Marshall. Yes.

Senator Laxalt. Having lived with the standards that have been 

imposed by EPA, a t this point have you arrived at a conclusion in 

your own head as to whether or not the standards that are imposed 

are realistic for this money?

Mr. Marshall. We find that for the water pollution, the standards are realistic. We are able to meet them. One of the things tha t 

has delayed us in the past is joining municipalities and regional 

treatm ent plants. We may have the money ready to invest in this 

part of the regional plan, but the local municipality, the State or 

the region, may not have gotten the ir money to be a contributor. 

So sometimes that has delayed us. When that happens, of course, 

EPA still gives us pressure because we are not meeting the requirements. At the same time, I am sure that they are giving the 

regional or th e local municipality a problem.

In air pollution, of course, one of the things that continues to 

plague us is, for example, some of our coal fired power plants, 

where the new pollution standards have to be met. The equipment 

to meet some of these is so expensive. In some cases, even after we 

have made this large investment, the equipment does not perform to 

meet that standard, so they have to come back.

Senator Laxalt. Is there any consensus within your agency as to 

whether or not this kind of requirement as imposed for tha t kind 

of money is actually needed, or do you consider that to be any of 

your business?

Mr. Marshall. Well, we are for the improvement of the environment.

Senator Laxalt. We all are.

Mr. Marshall. We know that to do this, both for water tre atment and the air pollution, is going to cost a lot of money. I thin k 

that we would have to say that we generally support the legislation.

Senator Laxalt. I have no problem with the legislation. What about the standard?

Mr. Marshall. We would say that we support the standard.

Senator Laxalt. Do you find it generally to be realistic?

Mr. Marshall. Yes.
42

PANAMA TREATY-RELATED CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Fliakas. The Panama Canal Treaty requires military construction in the Canal Zone for two reasons. First, the treaty requires release of specified portions of active U.S. military instal­ lations to The Republic of Pan ama over the life of th e treaty, with the majority occurring with its entry into force by October 1, 1979, and within its first 5 years. These releases require the relocation of military units and activities to U.S. military installations which 

will be retained for the life of the treaty. Second, the trea ty states that the Canal Zone Government and Panama Canal Company cannot operate in Panama beyond Octo­ ber 1, 1979, and provides for the substitution of a Panama Canal 

Commission for the latter. In the process, various U.S. governmental retail and community support services, heretofore provided to the Department of Defense, 

will have to be assumed by the m ilitary services. To accommodate the military relocations and functional assump­ tions required by October 1, 1979, fiscal year 1979 funding in the amount of $40.6 million is required. Of this amount, $10.9 million was authorized by the Deputy Secretary of Defense in early No­ vember last year, using the auth ority in section 402 of th e Defense agencies title of the annual Military Construction Authorization 

Act. The balance is being requested in the fiscal year 1979 supplemen­ tal budget. Other construction requirements, totaling $6 million, 

are included in the fiscal year 1980 budget.

NATO INFR ASTRUC TUR E

For this year, $150 million in authorization and funding is re­ quired to finance the United States’ shar e of th e common funded NATO infrastructu re program. This represents a substantial in­ crease from the $90 million requested in fiscal year 1979. One of the major reasons stems from the necessity to adjust the total cost of prior years’ unliquidated obligations which were originally obli­ gated when the IAU, or the infrastructure accounting unit rate to the U.S. dollar was at a much lower and more favorable rate. The United States is actively pursuing the use of this program to the maximum in order to satisfy U.S. European construction re­ quirements. It is expected therefore that demands on infrastruc­ ture funding will increase substantially and this, too, will impact the fiscal year 1980 request. We have included in the fiscal year 1979 supplemental a request for an appropriation of $46.2 million 

for this purpose. I will cover this topic in greater detail in my separate statement on construction in Europe next Monday, sir, when we meet again.

FAMILY HOUSING

For fiscal year 1980, the Department of Defense family housing program requires an appropriation of about $1.7 billion, the same level as our request for fiscal year 1979. The fiscal year 1979 level was maintained because this program includes only operation, maintenance, leasing, debt payment and other minor support costs.
43

New construction has been eliminated from this year’s request. 

Similarly, we do not plan any improvement program for the existing inventory with fiscal year 1980 funds.

The fiscal year 1980 request recognizes a continuing increase in 

utility and other operational costs, coupled with the new units 

coming into the inventory. We are continuing the program initiated last year to reduce the maintenance deficiency to a manageable 

level by the end of fiscal ye ar 1982.

Last year, Congress directed the Department of Defense to test 

the feasibility of metering the utilities consumed by occupants of 

military family housing units and a billing system to charge such 

occupants for use above a “norm.” Certain delays in developing the 

systems to be used in the test, and in installing the meters, have 

caused us to miss some of the earlier milestone dates.

We are moving along with the test, and fully expect to be able to 

provide the final report on feasibility to the concerned committee 

by March 1, 1980.

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

This program provides financial assistance to Department of Defense civilian and military homeowners whose homes a re located in 

areas where real estate markets are depressed by base closures and 

realinements.

The probability of additional realinements from studies c urrently 

being conducted dictates the $5 million request in fiscal year 1980 

to preclude the potential of funding shortfalls.

BASE REALINEME NTS

On April 26, 1978, the Department of Defense announced candidate realinem ent studies and actions at 85 military installations 

and activities in the United States. The proposals, if implemented 

upon completion of the necessary studies, could reduce annu al 

defense costs by more than $337 million and eliminate 14,600 military and 8,600 civilian positions.

We expect that all decisions resulting from outstanding major 

realinement studies initiated in 1976 and 1978 will be announced 

in the next few months.

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHEL F OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES

As we advised you in earlier years, the increase in the oil and 

gas lease sales program on the Oute r Continental Shelf creates a 

corresponding increase in potential conflicts with Department of 

Defense activities in these coastal waters.

The Department of the Inte rior’s leasing schedule requires a 

continuing dialog with them to assure the operational integrity of 

those missions most essential to the national security. Heavy oil 

industry interests in the Gulf of Mexico immediately south of Eglin 

and Tyndall Air Force Bases, th e Outer Continental Shelf offshore 

of California involving areas used extensively by the Pacific Missile 

Test Center, and elements of the Pacific Fleet are involved. If sales 

are successful in these areas, relocation of off-shore facilities could 

be likely.
44

DEFENSE AGENCIES

The total appropriation request for th e defense agencies is $244.3 

million. The prime reason for this larger program, is the incorporation of multiservice facility requirements, such as the NATO infrastructure, and Department of Defense dependent schools programs 

in the defense agencies’ request as directed by this committee. For 

details on this program, I have an addendum to my statement on 

page 40 that provides the requirements by agency.

SUMMAR Y

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I am appreciative of this opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of Defense fiscal year 1980 m ilitary construction program, and to discuss 

subjects in the construction, housing and installation areas which 

are of interest to this committee. I have with me various members of my staff, and together we 

will be able to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Senator Huddleston. T hank you.

First of all, we are dealing with a budget that is substantially 

below last year’s budget. Last year’s was somewhat over the previous year, but those previous years had been at an austere rate, 

bringing about the deferral of a good many necessary projects.

I recognize, of course, the need for fiscal austerity. It is obvious 

throughout this budget tha t this has been a major objective of 

yours. It does not indicate tha t the construction needs have actually 

decreased any, does it?

Mr. Fliakas. It does not.

BACKLOG OF CONSTRUC TION

Senator Huddleston. You are again deferring the modernization 

of facilities th at really needs to be done.

Mr. Fliakas. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Our backlog of construction is high, at over $32 billion. We have 

figures for all military departments, for not only new requirements, but correction of deficiencies of those facilities in existence 

now, to take care of our requirements, plus the modernization or 

replacement of deteriorating and obsolescent facilities. So it does 

remain high.

Senator Huddleston. The $32 billion, is that based on the replacement or modernization at today’s prices?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, it is.

Senator Huddleston. You are not projecting into the future?

Mr. Fliakas. No, sir. We do recalculate every year.

Senator Huddleston. So actua lly it is much higher, because 

there is no way that you can get it all done in a year, even if you 

had the money?

Mr. Fliakas. That is correct, yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. On the basis of this budget, would it increase or decrease in the next fiscal year?
45

Mr. Fliakas. As I indicated in my statem ent, Mr. Chairman, we 

are presenting a constrained program, decisions to defer what may 

be considered valid projects, but do not in the judgment of the 

Department contribute this year to the immediate short-term 

needs of the Department of Defense. It was with that guidance, 

actually, tha t this program was put together.

To answ er your question, there is about 25 percent of this yea r’s 

program in the CONUS allocated to modernization, which is not 

bad, compared to previous years where we have had perhaps as 

much as 29 percent, in some cases 33 and 34 percent of the programs.

Senator Huddleston. Is t ha t sufficient to keep up with the backlog?

Mr. Fliakas. The escalation rate alone, plus the obsolescence 

rate will probably add to tha t estim ate of $32 billion backlog.

Essentially, what this program does is to take care of our higher 

priority requirements, such as to maintain a high state of readiness, plus contributing to national programs such as energy conservation and pollution abatem ent. These are essentially the highest 

priorities t ha t were established.

Senator Huddleston. There are some quite significant tradeoffs 

here, are n’t there?

It seems to me t ha t it could be more tha n just the dollar amount 

that you are talking about. It seems to me t ha t the capability of an 

army depends on having the facilities tha t are necessary and, second, 

having the housing needed to maintain personnel.

You have to wrestle with the problem of whether or not modernization of the barra cks might contribute more toward keeping a 

good force tha n some of these other expenditures, such as energy 

conservation, or pollution.

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir, indeed, we have.

I would guess t ha t most of the 25-percent estim ate that I indicated for modernization is primarily for barracks space. There are 

included in this budget new construction and modernization of 

barracks.

Senator Huddleston. But not nearly enough to keep up.

Mr. Fliakas. We still have a substantial requirement, yes, sir, 

but we believe tha t for the highest priority installations, as submitted by the military departments, we have at least placed the emphasis on those. For example, we are providing some 9,700 spaces 

through new construction for enlisted quarters, and about 8,500 

spaces, again in enlisted quarters, through modernization.

You a re right; it is not our total requirement.

Senator Huddleston. I have been trave ling around, talking to 

commanders at various bases, and they place a very high priority 

on facilities, modern facilities, to keep up the morale of the troops, 

possibly extending enlistments, and that type of thing.

It seems to me that it has a direct impact on our capability.

Mr. Fliakas. There is no question that this is correct, and we 

believe that it is a very important part of career motivation to 

provide a decent place to live and work. Our requirements reflect 

our concern for our people.

Senator Huddleston. What, mostly, is in this $32 billion back­ log?

U l- 6 3 8 0 - 79 - *4
46

Mr. Fliakas. I will submit a complete statem ent for the record, 

but very briefly I am reading total figures for the Department of 

Defense, but I can provide a breakdown by services for the committee.We estimate a total program deficiency, as I indicated of $32 billion, of tha t $8.8 billion is in support of new missions, $7.8 

billion is deficiencies in our facilities to meet our present missions, 

or current mission for each installation; and oyer $15 billion is for replacement and upgrading for a total of about $31.8 or $32 billion.

[The information follows:]

A complete category breakdown of the $32 billion backlog of the military departments is provided in the following table which reflects require ments based on 

cu rre nt construction criteria, designed missions, and force structu re. In addition this 

table contains the facility backlogs for family housing and the Guard and Reserve 

Forces.

[In millions of dollars]

Facility category

Operational. ..........................................................

Training...............................................................

Maintenance/production...........................................

Research and development........................................

Supply............................. .. ........... ...............7...............

Nferfeaf 7...”............................................

Administrative. ................................................... •••■

Troop housing ......... ................... .„ ............. .............

Com munity..........................................................

Site preparation, utilities , pollution abatement, energy. .......

Land............ ............ 7....... 77 ........................77...... ....

Minor constru ction /des ign ........................................

Subtotal (military departments).......................

Family housing (18 ,36 9 u n it s )..................................

Guara/Reserve Forces facilities. ................ .................

Grand to ta l. ........... 7. .................................

Army Navy Air Foret Total

893 1,346 3,980 6,219

808 319 180 1,307

2,473 2,547 660 5,680

414 248 550 1,212

1,695 573 400 2,668

835 583 670 2,088

836 325 290 1,451

1,046 735 730 2,511

1,441 356 340 2,137

2,126 992 1,450 4,568

54 357 70 481

450 575 440 1,465

13,071 8,956 9,760 31,787

215 516 285 1,016

1,387 206 530 2,123

14,673 9,678 10,575 34,926

Senator Huddleston. What level of annual financing would 

reduce, or substantially reduce that amount, forgetting the fiscal 

restraints?

Mr. Fliakas. I would say, reasonably, sir, that about $5 billion a 

year would be appropriate to retire the backlog.

ZERO BASE BUDGET

Senator Huddleston. You mention that this budget was based on 

zero-base techniques. How did you proceed with mission and function considerations from the zero base?

Mr. F liakas. Each project submitted by the military department 

was put through a very intensive review, star ting with the installation, and then submitted through channels to the major command, 

and through the departm ent—Army, Navy, Air Force—subsequently to my office, where it received again a critical review in conjunction with our comptroller, and with the Office of Management and 

Budget.

Throughout all of these reviews, a very critical review was made 

of w hether or not the requirements could be handled in another 

manner, that is by other facilities, or other installations, or wheth-
47

er it is the most cost effective approach to the solution, or to the 

provision of th at requirement for that mission or for that installation.

It is based on a review of tha t requirement to perform a specific 

mission. I will be happy to provide for th e committee not a critique, 

but a review procedure tha t is used to weigh and rate those projects on an individual basis. We reviewed perhaps 1,500 to 2,000 

individuals projects throughout the budget year.

IMPACT OF INFLATION

Senator Huddleston. Your inflation assumptions are 7.0 percent 

for 1979, and 6.5 percent for 1980. The 1979 rate it appears will be 

more than 7 percent, and perhaps the other years will be above 

what you a re projecting, too.

Can you judge the extent of the shortfall which will likely be 

carried forward from the present 1979 budget?

Mr. Fliakas. Only to this extent, as this time, Mr. Chairman. We 

have had some early experience in this fiscal y ear and already had 

about 20 percent of our bids th at had to be rejected because of high 

bid proposals, and submissions. We are analyzing those and evaluating them to see whether they should be either rebid or redesigned, reduced in scope, or what the alternative m ight be.

In the past, for example, the last 4 fiscal years, we obligated the 

program at about 96 percent of th e program authorized amount. I 

don’t know whether we will do that well this year, and judging 

from the 20 percent of projects already submitted with excessive 

bids, I would have to guess that it will be touch and go through out 

the year. But in estim ating our cost for 1980, of course, we play a 

guessing game.

We do not want to inflate our costs, again, because of the constrained program, it behooves us to get as many projects in within 

the amount as we can. If we overestimate, then we are ju st providing a questionable reason. If we underestim ate, of course, we either 

have to cut projects, cut scope, or reprogram at a late r date.

So as an old comptroller type, I recall the action that we used, 

you don’t budget for inflation unless you get it. We, of course, were 

given guidance by the Office of Management and Budget. We thin k 

that we can live with it. We hope that we will be able to live with 

it.

Senator Huddleston. What impact are you feeling on overseas 

construction where you have both inflation and the devaluation of 

the dollar?

Mr. Fliakas. It has been very rough, sir. Hence the submission of 

a substantia l requirement in the supplemental that was submitted 

by the President with the 1980 submission for some $95 million for 

both construction and for family housing costs, as well as $46 

million for NATO infrastructure.

Primarily, I can illustrate it this way. When we developed and 

submitted the 1979 program, our construction costs in the FRG in 

Germany were predicated upon a 2.4 deutsche mark to the dollar. 

As you know now, sir, we are down under 1.90, or 1.85. We have 

similar, although not to a large exte nt in the order of m agnitude,
48

problems in Japa n where the yen has also dipped below 190. I 

thin k tha t it is 190, but below 200 yen to the dollar.

So our supplemental request is based on t ha t devaluation. Therefore, if we do not obtain relief, again we may have to defer already 

approved and authorized appropriated projects.

NATO INFRASTR UCTURE

Senator Huddleston. We, of course, will go more into NATO in 

subsequent hearings, but the request is for $150 million for fiscal 

year 1980 Infrastru cture, to finance the U.S. share. What facilities 

are we contributing through th e infrastructure?

Mr. Fliakas. The infrastructu res that are available for funding 

are those tha t are mostly operational and training. These are 

projects tha t should be commonsense throu gh alliance and benefit 

either two or more nations. In the case of the United States, it 

would benefit those forces that are committed to the alliance, the 

NATO alliance.

Because there have been considerable concerns expressed by the 

Congress in previous years, we have increased our attempts to 

expand the eligibility criteria to provide more facilities under this 

blanket funding. It is completely to our advantage to put everything in there because it could result in an economic liability to us 

if all nations, for example, were to press for infrastructure funding 

for their forces, which are much greater than ours.

So since our percentage of infrastructure funding is, by negotiations with the alliance-----

Senator Huddleston. What is it now?

Mr. Fliakas. It is a percentage, and at this moment it is about 27 

percent. But when we ta ke the U.S. special program into account, 

it decreases to about 21 percent.

Now, as you know, sir, we have a U.S. delegation and a U.S. 

mission has made a concerted effort to increase the next 5-year 

program for infrastruc ture a t the summit conference last May. The 

President, when he committed a 3-percent increase in the budget to 

NATO, also agreed with the other alliance members on a series of 

what was called long-term defense program objectives. Now, if we 

are to meet those objectives, we feel that at least a three-fold 

increase in the next 5-year program is necessary.

If that happens, of course, our contribution through the NATO 

infrastru cture program will also increase. So we have done a 

number of things. We have tried to get more stability. For example, in the last few years, when we were prefinancing such things 

as aircraft shelters, we are now prodded somewhat by th e committee, as well as our own objectives, to rely exclusively on the infrastructure programing for those kinds of things.

Senator Huddleston. Would you supply the committee with a 

list of the construction that the United States is prefunding directly related to NATO?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir. We will cover this in more detail next 

week, but I am pleased to be able to report, and I thin k that the 

committee will be pleased to note that in this yea r’s program only 

about 19 percent of our construction requirements in Europe, re-
49

fleeted in this year’s program, are prefinanced as opposed to more 

than 70 percent last year.

In effect, sir, we got your message, and we thin k that we have 

turn ed our programs and our objectives around sufficiently to reflect that. Although we urge an acceptance of the concept tha t 

some prefinancing will still be necessary.

Senator Huddleston. Are there projects tha t we finance unilaterally, or are they projects that relate to supplying our own forces, 

accommodating our presence there?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir. Logistics and community-type housing, and 

that type of project are usually considered as a unilateral responsibility.

Senator Huddleston. To what extent are we providing on-base 

housing for our troops in NATO?

Mr. Fliakas. Principally, Mr. Chairman, through a leasing program. As you know, as of last y ear or the y ear before, we received 

authorization to enter into a 10-year lease period as opposed to the 

previous authorization of only 5 years. We feel that this will help 

us in some select areas, where our tenure is considered to be 

secure, in the United Kingdom, for example, and the FRG, to 

enable entrepreneurs and sponsors to provide leased housing for us 

as opposed to new construction.

We have not determined it prud ent to request appropriated 

funds for new construction. We feel tha t the leasing route is preferable, and this budget does reflect an increase for leasing.

Senator Huddleston. Do you have figures on how many troops 

are living onbase and offbase?

Mr. Fliakas. We can provide th at, Mr. Chairman.

[The inform ation follows:]

Excluding the United States and Canada, our housing records as of March 31, 

1978, indicate tha t we have 60,659 military families living in military controlled 

onbase or leased units in the community, and 70,088 military families living offbase 

under private arrangem ents in NATO countries.

PANAMA CANAL ZONE— RELATED CONSTRUCTION

Senator Huddleston. In the Panama Canal Zone, you have just 

obligated $10 million for emergency construction. What specifically 

is th at money for?

Mr. Fliakas. Specifically, Mr. Chairman, it was to take care of 

those facilities that would be required to accommodate the relocated forces that are treaty driven. For example, the 470th M ilitary 

Intelligence Group, which is now located at Fort Amador is being 

relocated to Fort Clayton.

Senator Huddleston. This is a requirement of the treaty?

Mr. Fliakas. As a result of the treaty, we are giving to the 

Republic of Panama certain areas, and Fort Amador and Albrook 

Air Force Station.

Senator Huddleston. What is th at term “given”? [Laughter.]

Mr. Fliakas. I felt that it was wrong as soon as I said it They are 

reverting, if I may, to the Republic of Panama. From the standpoint of the Department of Defense, the headquarters of th e 193rd 

Brigade now housed at Fort Amador is being moved, an d one of the 

largest requirements that necessitated the construction contingen-
50

cy req uirem ent last fall is th e move of the helicopters of the 210th 

Aviation Battalion from Albrook to the other side of th e canal, to 

the west side at Howard Air Force Base.

Now, the $10.9 million was determined to do a number of things. 

First it was to take advantage of the dry season that started in 

December of last year, and which is expected, hopefully to last 

until about the latter part of April or May.

We have to build a taxiway for the fixed-wing aircraft. Also, 

helicopter tiedowns and pads are being constructed for this move. 

But this is just the initial sta rtu p cost, and the minimum essential 

tha t we felt we had to undertake last fall. Hence, the determin ation by the Secretary and the President that we should proceed.

Senator Huddleston. As you know, the 1979 military construction report made a point that the administration should come back 

to Congress for approval before emergency construction funds were 

used.

Did this expenditure of th e funds violate the letter and spirit of 

tha t conference agreement?

Mr. Fliakas. It certainly was not intended to violate the intent, 

Mr. Chairman. I think it was indicated that some emergency construction may be necessary. Now, had we had our choice, and 

actually we did, we prepared a 1979 amendment t ha t was ready for 

submission to the Congress last summer, in July.

For a number of reasons that was not formally submitted to the 

Congress. When it became app arent that one, it would not be 

submitted to the Congress, and that the Congress would not act on 

it in whatever order it was, the Secretary, then, saw no choice but 

to proceed with the contingency authorization.

Now, we did notify the committee, as is required, and the President certified the urgency of that requirement. We did keep the 

committees advised through out the process.

Senator Huddleston. Have these funds been used for any purpose other th an the Panama Canal construction?

Mr. Fliakas. No, they have not.

Excuse me, are you a sking me if any other funds were used out 

of the contingency fund for other purposes last year?

Senator Huddleston. Yes.

Mr. Fliakas. I will have to supply that. The $10.9 million was 

based on what we consider a minimum essential level of effort tha t 

will be used in Panama. Now we had available to us last year, as a 

result of carryover from previous years and the new appropriations, about $25 million in the contingency fund, which is available, as you know, sir, to meet those needs tha t are determ ined to be 

in th e vital security interest of th e United States.

I don’t recall now any other use of tha t contingency fund, but I 

will provide it.

[The information follows:]
51

Projects authorize d in fiscal year 1978

[In thousands of dollars)

National Security Agency: Installatio n of emergency powerpla nt, airconditioning and modifications to operations building at a classified 

loc ation.......................................................................................................... 1,800

Office of the Secreta ry of Defense: Electronic tes t station for a classified a cti vity.................................................................................................... 466

Navy: Rehabilita te POL facilities, Japan (Second cost adjustment on 

project initially auth orized in fiscal year 1972 at $6.775)....................... 940

Air Force:

Ini tial facilities to suppor t the early deployment of the A-10 weapon

system in Eu rop e.............................................................................................. 2,530

Upgrading of airfield facilities at Tonopah Test Range, Ne v.................... 6,050

Subtotal, A ir Fo rce............................................................................... 8,580

Total authorize d in fiscal yea r 1978.................................................... 11,786

Projects authorized in fisc al year 1979 (to date)

Army: Construction required in the Panam a Canal Zone to permit 

relocation of m ilitary functions required und er terms of the Panam a 

Canal Treaty.................................................................................................. 10,900

Total auth orized in fiscal yea r 1979 (to date).................................... 10,900

Senator Huddleston. Do you know how much remains?

Mr. Rollence. $14.4 million.

Senator Huddleston. Is all the $10.9 million under contract?

Mr. Fliakas. No, sir. Let me ask Captain Sylva to answer on 

that.

Captain Sylva. Mr. Chairman, in view of the need to initiate this 

type of work on very short notice, the Army, as the defense construction agent, issued a letter contract to J. A. Jones in the 

amount of $6 million jus t to get the work underway. This is the 

type of contract vehicle that is utilized when you must sta rt early, 

and you don’t have plans and specs completed.

The Army is in the final stage of completing the final specs, and 

they expect to complete the negotiations of the contract sometime 

in April.

Senator Huddleston. When did work begin?

Captain Sylva. Some of the work began in late November, but 

the actual work at Howard Air Force Base, which involved earth 

moving, had to be done in the dry season, and that portion started 

early in December.

Mr. Fliakas. I visited there last month, Mr. C hairman, and they 

are well underway.

Senator Huddleston. You are requesting a further $29.7 million 

in the 1979 supplemental for Panama Canal construction. I assume 

tha t this still has to be authorized?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. What specifically will these funds be used for?

Captain Sylva. Of the total amount of some $40.6 million that is 

required in 1979, $1 million is required for some of these functions 

that are going to be assumed by the services from the Panama 

Canal Company and the Canal Zone Government. For example, the 

Air Force will take on the responsibility for postal service, and
52

they have to convert a small hangar into a bulk distribution 

center, and expand two other buildings as postal facilities. They 

will also undertake trash collection, and specific types of responsibilities.

The remainder of the money, over $39 million, is to support the 

military units and activities that are forced to relocate.

Senator Huddleston. Generally, then, it is to support our own 

forces.

Captain Sylva. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. And provide the defense that we are obligated to provide?

Mr. Fliakas. I might add that the installations that are determined to be under the United States control throu gh the life of the 

treaty -----

Senator Huddleston. None of these expenditures will be for 

facilities tha t are to be turn ed over to Pana ma before the year 

2000?

Mr. Fliakas. T hat is correct.

Senator Huddleston. We will have 20 years of usage out of 

them?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes.

Senator Huddleston. I guess the question arises as to why these 

funds are being requested in the 1979 supplemental rather than 

the fiscal year 1980 budget.

Mr. Fliakas. As I indicated, it would have been preferable had 

we amended the 1979 budget last year. The reason it is in the 

supplemental is to permit us to mobilize the contractor to order 

materials, and to get started.

Senator Huddleston. For th e continuity of the project?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. You have a further $6 million request for 

fiscal year 1980. What will these funds be used for?

Mr. Fliakas. Captain Sylva?

Captain Sylva. These moneys are necessary to support some 

additional relocations tha t are required by trea ty as well as certain 

recreation facilities at Howard Air Force Base. As Mr. Fliakas 

mentioned, over the first 5 years of the treaty, there will be various 

scheduled relocations required. The fiscal year 1980 covers the need 

to relocate the Air Forces Curundu Antenna farm, and the Defense 

Mapping Agency at Albrook must be relocated to other facilities.

Senator Huddleston. Again, this is for our own forces?

Captain Sylva. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. Will this complete the necessary construction called for by the treaty?

Mr. Fliakas. We have not established any out-year requirements 

beyond 1980. We have talked to the U.S. Southern Command about 

the necessity to establish a regional complex or master plan for all 

of the requirements, and to submit them to us for consideration 

early, for the 1981 and 1982 programs.

As we indicated some of these relocations will take place over a 

span of 5 years. But in my judgm ent it will not be prud ent to wait 

until 1985 or 1990 to meet those requirements. If we are going to 

require them, I would like to front-load them as much as possible, 

and indicate to the committee what our requirements are. There
53

will be some final requirements, but we hope to keep them to a 

minimum.

Senator Huddleston. What facilities do we tur n over to the 

Panama Canal on October 1?

Mr. Fliakas. Portions of Fort Amador. We do retain most of the 

family housing units at Fort Amador, but essentially it will be just 

a bedroom community for us. We will move the battalion headquarters and the intelligence group out. We also turn over portions 

of Albrook East, as it is called, to the Republic of Panama.

Senator Huddleston. Do we know what use they will make of 

those facilities?

Mr. Fliakas. Of course, they do have a force, the Guardia Nacionale, which has no particular combat capability in term s of 

military use now. They do have, perhaps, 2,000 of these that are 

rather isolated and scattered in units, and possibly could be assigned to a military type activity.

It is expected that they will occupy, with those elements, those 

areas, particula rly Fort Amador.

Senator Huddleston. They will be there to assist in the defense 

of the Canal?

Mr. Fliakas. As I understand the provisions of the treaty the 

United States does have the principal responsibility for defense of 

the canal throu gh the life of the trea ty, or December 1999.

It is intended, however, th at we assist in training and developing 

that force from the Guardia Nacionale consistent with our ability 

to develop it. As you know, they are economically depressed. It is 

intended that a loan or credit will be established to permit them to 

purchase modern equipment, and with some joint training over the 

years, it is hoped and expected that they will be able to join in the 

defense of the canal.

Senator Huddleston. Are we discontinuing our Jungle Training 

School there?

Mr. Fliakas. No, we are maintain ing it.

Senator Huddleston. We will maintain those facilities as well?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. Do you have a dollar value for the facilities tha t will be turned over on October 1?

Captain Sylva. No, sir, we do not. We could provide that for the 

record.

[The information follows:]

Estimated Value of Released DOD Facilities

Records reflect tha t the acquisition cost of the buildings a t Fort Amador, Albrook 

Air Station and Coco Solo being transferred to Panam a is $7 million and tha t the 

estimated costs of associated utilities systems, parking areas and roads is an additional $8 million. Some of these facilities date back to 1915. Based on the various 

initial construction dates and conditions of repair and utility, and in the absence of 

any formal property appraisals, the present value of these facilities can only be 

estimated. An approximation of their present value would presumably be of the 

order of about $50 million. This amount equates to half of the cost to build replacement in-kind facilities to today’s standards. However, since the construction of these 

facilities, force levels and requirements have changed considerably. Some of these 

older facilities are excess to requirements and would otherwise be demolished if 

funds were available. Therefore, their actual value should be further discounted.

Senator Huddleston. Do you have any additional questions Senator Laxalt?
54

Senator Laxalt. No, not for the moment. You are doing a good 

job, Mr. Chairman.

BASE REA LINEMENT S

Senator Huddleston. You mention base realignments. Can you 

be more specific as to that; can we expect those in March or April?

Mr. Fliakas. I would like to advance my estim ate actually and 

indicate tha t the goal of th e Secretary or the Deputy Secretary is 

to make a general announcement with regard to those decisions in 

the pipeline within the next 30 days, hopefully around the middle 

of March. But I cannot anticipate exactly when that might be.

Senator Huddleston. Have the estimates in the budget been 

based on these realignments?

Mr. F liakas. As a resu lt of studies t ha t we are taking, of course, 

we do not program any construction at those installations tha t 

might be caught or held, until a decision is made. As a matter of 

fact, we have also taken steps to hold in abeyance, or defer construction tha t has been authorized at some places like Fort Dix, for 

example, and even at Fort Benning, where a barracks was a uthorized, but until the decision is made on whether it should be a 

training type facility, or another type of facility, which, of course, 

does reflect on the criteria to be used, we have held that in abeyance. So I would say, Mr. Chairman, tha t I am at least 99.9 percent 

confident tha t this budget will not be affected by those base realignments.

GUARD AN D RESERVE PROGRAM

Senator Huddleston. The Guard and Reserve components have 

been concerned for some time with the amount of appropriations 

made available to them. They have been cut 40 percent in this 

submission t ha t is before us right now.

In your statem ent, you indicated that this is not a lack of support for the Guard and Reserve, but their portion or their share of 

an austere military construction request. How did you determine 

what those proportions were?

Mr. Fliakas. It was a very carefully worded statement, Mr. 

Chairman.

Senator Huddleston. I tho ught it sounded that way.

Mr. Fliakas. It does reflect, perhaps, about $68 million decrease 

from last year’s program, which was at about $168 million, down to 

$100 million this year.

I can only answer, sir, that each component was looked at very 

carefully. We want to support especially those units and those 

locations tha t have promise of maintaining the ir strength. As you 

know there have been some recruiting problems, and some retention problems in the Reserves. Of course, it is like a catch-22, 

because if you don’t provide them with the facilities and the equipment—

Senator Huddleston. That is precisely my point. If you are going 

to defer a unit that is down a little bit, how are they ever going to 

catch up?

Mr. Fliakas. This was looked at on a unit per unit basis, and we 

attem pted to program those facilities commensurate with equip-
55

ment, deliveries and needs on a high priority basis. It is simply 

that some requirements, of necessity, are deferred.

Senator Huddleston. It is viewed on the basis of total readiness 

capability of our Armed Forces, including the National Guard and 

Reserves?

Mr. Fliakas. It remains, of course, a very pivotal part of our 

policy for our total force to include the Reserve and Guard units as 

they round out and support the active forces. Yes, sir, very much 

so.

POLLUTION AB AT EM EN T

Senator Huddleston. On pollution abatement, Senator Laxalt 

asked you about this a few moments ago. Lots of moneys have been 

spent on pollution abate ment that has been mandated by Federal 

regulation.

According to our records, over the last 11 years you have spent 

about $2.2 billion in air and water pollution abatement at military 

installations, and have requested $254 million more in fiscal year 

1980. Do you feel that this will bring all of our installations into 

compliance with standards as we see them today?

Mr. Fliakas. I will ask Mr. Marshall to answer that.

I know, sir, that we are expecting new Federal guidelines on 

waste water treatm ent that require what is called best available 

technology th at will be very, very considerable.

Mr. Marshall. I don’t have it handy. We can submit it, for the 

record.

[The inform ation follows:]

The DOD program for compliance with environmental requirem ents in the next 5 

years is estimated a t $500 to $600 million. Because of the magnitude of the problem, 

it is probable tha t funding requests for correction measures for present violations 

will extend to the fiscal year 1982 MCP. The program will not end with fiscal year 

1982 because there are many future deadline requirem ents tha t are currently 

clearly defined. In addition there are future requirements as yet undefined.

An example of a known requirement is the future deadline (1984) for provision of 

advanced wastewater treatment as specified in the fiscal year 1977 amendments to 

the Clean Water Act (Public Law 95-217). EPA guidelines on these requirements 

may be available within the next year. A furthe r example of known future requirements are those resulting from new and amended state implementation plans for 

air pollution abatement.

Examples of less clearly defined future requirements are impending EPA regulations resulting from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Public Law 94- 

580) in the areas of hazardous waste management, transportation, storage and 

treatm ent, and the disposal of all other “normal” solid wastes.

The major thrust of new environmental legislation concerns toxic substances in 

air, water and land. As more research is accomplished on the effects of such 

substances on humans and the environment, we must expect more stringent limitations on more substances which will require further pollution abatem ent expenditures.

Regulations recently proposed by EPA would ultimately make many presently 

acceptable solid waste landfills unacceptable. Alternate disposal means will have to 

be funded. Certainly solid waste disposal costs will increase over the next 5 years.

Senator Huddleston. That brings up the question of how much 

of th at $2.2 billion has gone down the drain because of th e changing regulations, or whatever, which would require us to do it again. 

Is th at s substantial figure, or is most of th at still effective?

Mr. Marshall. I think that the problem is not so much with the 

change of the standard, but the inability, for example, to meet the 

standard s with current day equipment. Now the problem has been 

that the equipment has been designed based on the standard , and
56

of course it is purchased and bought to meet that standard. Once it 

is on line, you may find tha t it does not meet that standard.

This is particularly true in the air area. In the water area, we 

are not having any particular problems, we are not having any 

particular problems of that nature. The problem we are having, as 

I mentioned earlier, of course, is when we have to tie into a 

regional trea tme nt system, and things don’t seem to meet at the 

right time. We have had to take measures in some places in order 

to keep from being in violation, or file for an extension of time.

The law, of course, we are in violation of the law right now in 

many places, but so far we have not been taken to court except 

once or twice. One was in California on some jet engine test cells, 

and we have resolved th at problem now, or it is in the process of 

being resolved.

Senator Laxalt. Were those citizen suits, or EPA?

Mr. Marshall. The one in California was a State of California 

suit because their law is more stringent, really, than the EPA 

regulations.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Senator Huddleston. On energy conservation, you refer to new 

procedures tha t have been devised and some problems that occurred.

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, we have an internal audit of the early years of 

our energy conservation program. Early on, because we recognized 

the vast inventory of space th at we had that was really constructed 

in a cheap energy era, we recognized that we had to make our 

buildings more energy efficient, and the drive at that time was 

more to identify quick fast amortization type projects tha t not only 

saved energy, but saved money as well.

We found tha t while this was OK for early identification of the 

problem, tha t as the energy crisis—Also I would like to point out 

that we, in the Department of Defense, are leaders in this.

As we learned from our experience, and as we shifted our gears 

toward providing more energy intensive conservation projects, we 

revised our guidance to reflect primarily energy savers, rather 

than costsavers, although I can report tha t still this year’s program 

was amortized in a period of 6 years or less.

Senator Huddleston. The question now is not as much the amortization schedule as the saving of energy?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. Last year you presented us with some very 

convincing figures on amortization. You are continuing with the 

program?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes.

Mr. Marshall, would you expand on that?

Mr. Marshall. The new criteria that Mr. Fliakas addressed 

relates energy savings per $1,000 of investment, and we did this for 

two reasons. Since the beginning of our program, we have been 

trying to make a quick fix, get things done quickly, easy projects, 

since we started the program in the middle of the year, really.

Since th at time, of course, we have had the Executive order tha t 

we are required to save 20 percent of our energy in existing facilities, and 45 percent in new facilities.
57

Senator Huddleston. That did not contain any restrictions on 

the cost of it? Tha t was strictly energy savings?

Mr. Marshall. Tha t was strictly the energy saving aspect. So 

what we tried to do was to look a t the retrofit area, what portion of 

that 20 percent energy saving was realistic to try to achieve 

through retro fit of the building itself, and the building systems.

Now, it appears that we probably can get 12 percent using tha t 

methodology, the balance, the other 8 percent, will have to come 

through improved administrative procedures, turn ing down thermostats, teaching people how to operate the equipment bette r, and 

then replacing outmoded equipment with more durable and efficient equipment. This is the approach that we have taken.

Looking at it, we tried to look a t what, in order to meet the 1985 

deadline, how we should structure this energy saving per $1,000, 

and we sta rted with a large number, some 55 mega Btu per $1,000 

invested, and as the years go on, of course, because we will have 

retrofitted more projects, and easier projects to retrofit and get 

energy savings, tha t number is going to have to drop as we get 

down toward 1985.

That is what the new crite ria does, and we believe that we can 

meet 20 percent DOD-wide on an average basis.

SOLAR ENERGY

Senator Huddleston. What are you going to do in the area of 

solar energy?

Mr. Marshall. We have done several things. You may recall 

that in 1976 we testified before you on the 1976 legislation. We 

were involved at t ha t time in a joint effort with DOE, a demonstration program for family housing, which was very unsuccessful from 

our standpoint. The project came in too high, and we were very 

unsuccessful.

For the 1977 time frame, we got involved with DOE again in 

another project, which we were successful in doing at Fort Polk, 

La., 40 houses, and that one came in above the cost tha t we would 

like to see, but there was a major reduction in cost from the 

previous year.

For 1979 military construction authorization legislation, there is 

a requirement in section 804 that we analyze 25 percent of our 

military construction projects, other than family housing, beginning 90 days afte r enactm ent, and analyzing the 1979 housing 

program, excluding those projects which had not been completed by 

DIA, where the analysis had not been completed, 10 of the projects 

in that program will have solar energy.

Now we are asking in 1980, in the authorization legislation that 

there be some minor changes to the way that law is written, 

primarily because they gave us a definition of cost effectiveness 

which we don’t thin k is the proper definition. The definition indicates that to determine the cost effectiveness of solar energy, if you 

recoup the initial investment, with the fuel savings over the life of 

the structure, it ignores the maintenance cost of the system, and 

the replacement cost that will be necessary, I am sure, during the 

25 year life of the house. That is why we have so many of these 

projects in 1979 that are cost effective.
58

I would like for it to be put on the life-cycle cost basis, like we do 

everything else, when we are looking at equipment for buildings.

In addition to tha t, the law said that 25 percent of the dollar 

value of military construction program, other than family housing 

would be analyzed. If you look at 25 percent of some of our programs, we don’t have that many projects tha t are susceptible to 

analysis. So we will end up doing an analysis on 100 percent of our 

projects.

Mr. Fliakas. We have access roads, bridges, and so on.

Senator Huddleston. But basically, the 1980 budget reflects this 

guidance?

Mr. Marshall. The authorization request reflects the change in 

some of this legislation, but since we have no new family housing, 

tha t part is not impacted. The other military construction, it does 

not really reflect that law, because that law became effective for 

all military construction 90 days afte r its enactment and our designs had begun before enactment.

So this has begun to be negotiated—the contracts began to be 

negotiated in December. Therefore, fiscal year 1981 is going to be 

the major impact.

PLA N N IN G AN D DE SIGN

Senator Huddleston. I remember last year that there was a 

good deal of discussion about the procedures used in planning and 

design. What is the status of the competitive test program that 

Congress directed last year?

Mr. Fliakas. As you know, sir, it was directed in the conference 

report. We, in connection with the Corps of Engineers, did design 

tests which we felt would meet the intent of the report requirements.

Since th at time, however, the re is some indication that it may be 

challenged in terms of our legal ability to get on with that test as 

it was designed. The general counsel, for example, has made an 

opinion tha t it would not be in conformance with current statu tes. 

So we may have to redesign the test. It is our inte nt to try to 

comply with the conference report, within the constraints, of 

course, of the law.

Mort, can you add to that?

Mr. Marshall. Well, sir, I don’t know if I can add anything to 

tha t or not. You pretty well covered it.

Senator Huddleston. How much money is appropriated for that 

purpose?

Mr. Fliakas. $5 million was set aside for tha t purpose. It was not 

appropriated specifically for tha t purpose.

Senator Huddleston. Has it been expended?

Mr. Fliakas. No, sir. We have identified the test procedures, 

which we felt would be very good in meeting the inten t, that is to 

have some projects designed solely on a competitive cost basis. 

Others would use the GSA type procedures. I guess I will have to 

report at this time that we are sort of in limbo until such time as 

we get the approval to proceed, or redesign the rest, to be in 

conformance with what is described in the statute or the traditional way of selecting an architect-engineer.

Letter From Henry 6. Beauregard

A p r il 23, 197 9

S e n a to r W a lt e r D. H u d d le sto n 

C hai rm an

M i l i t a r y C o n s tru c tio n S u bcom m it te e

o f th e S e n a te A p p r o p ria tio n s C om m itte e

12 39 D ir k se n S e n a te O f f ic e B u ild in g 

W ash in g to n , D.C . 20 51 0 

D ea r S e n a to r H u d d le s to n :

On b e h a lf o f H o ll y C o r p o r a tio n , I r e s p e c t f u l l y r e q u e s t

t h a t th e e n c lo s e d w r i t t e n s ta te m e n t be c o n s id e re d f o r in c lu s io n 

i n th e r e c o r d c o n c e rn in g th e D efe n se L o g is t i c s Age nc y s FY 1980 

M i l i t a r y C o n s tru c tio n P ro gra m b u d g e t r e q u e s t f o r fu n d s to p u r ­

c h a se th e O zo l, C a li f o r n ia and E sc a n a b a , M ic h ig a n f u e l te r m in a ls

H o ll y C o rp o ra tio n own s th e O zo l an d E sc a n a b a te r m in a ls 

an d i s oppose d to s e l l i n g th em to th e G ov er nm en t f o r th e re a s o n s 

s e t f o r t h in th e w r i t te n s ta te m e n t.

S in c e r e ly ,

H ef vt yf e. B e a u re g a rd J 

A tto rn e y f o r H o ll y c o r p o r a tio n

STATEMENT OF HOLLY CORPORATION 

BY HENRY G. BEAUREGARD

WHY GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF THE OZOL AND ESCANABA FUEL 

TERMINALS WOULD WASTE TAXPAYERS' MONEY

The D efe n se L o g is t i c s Ag ency (DLA) h as s u b m itte d in th e

M i l i t a r y A u th o r iz a tio n an d A p p r o p ria tio n A cts fo r FY 1980 a r e ­

q u e s t f o r $ 4 .2 5 m illio n to p u rc h a se th e f u e l te r m in a ls owned by 

th e H o ll y C o rp o ra tio n a t M a rtin e z , C a li f o r n ia ( th e Ozo l T e rm in a l), 

an d a t E scan ab a , M ic h ig a n .

H o ll y i s a c o r p o r a tio n , h e a d q u a r te r e d in D a lla s , T ex as, n o ily IS a CUipUldLXUll , ---, ------- ,

an d engaged in p e tr o le u m r e f i n i n g , e x p l o r a t i o n , an d p r o d u c tio n .

I t s f u e l te r m in a l o p e r a tio n s a re m an ag ed by i t s s u b s i d i a r y , th e Nav aj 

R e fin in g Co mp any , lo c a te d in A r t e s i a , New M ex ic o.

Und er tw e n ty -y e a r c o n t r a c t s w ith H o ll y , made in 19 60, th e 

G ov er nm en t h as o p tio n s to p u rc h a s e th e two te r m in a ls an d ta k e p o ss e s s io n in e a r l y 19 80 . The DLA h as s t a t e d i t w i l l se ek a c o n tr a c ­

t o r to o p e r a te e ach te r m in a l t h e r e a f t e r .

T h is i s U n n e c e ssa ry . C o s tly , an d W a ste fu l

H o ll y , w hic h h a s p ro v id e d an d m an ag ed b o th te r m in a ls fo r 

th e p a s t 19 y e a r s , b e l i e v e s t h a t th e s e p u rc h a s e s a r e u n j u s t i f i e d , 

u n n e c e s s a ry , an d a w a ste o f p u b lic fu n d s . F u r th e r , H o ll y b e lie v e s 

t h a t th e u ltim a te c o s ts to th e G ov er nm en t o f p u r c h a s in g th e f a c i l i ­

t i e s a re much h ig h e r th a n th e b u d g e t e s tim a te s p o r t r a y .
61

The Req ue st Is Not J u s t i f i e d

In j u s t i f y i n g th e re q u e st, th e DLA a ll e g e s th a t u n le ss 

th e o p ti o n s a re e x e rc is e d . H olly w ill char ge $2.4 m il lio n more p er 

y ear to p ro v id e th e se f a c i l i t i e s th an i t o r any o th e r c o n tr a c to r 

wo uld char ge to o p e ra te the m a f te r th ey are owned by th e Gov ernm ent.

T his su g g e sts th a t H oll y would have to r a is e i t s char ges fro m a 

c u rre n t t o t a l o f $5 00 ,000 fo r both te rm in a ls to fu tu re charg es of 

ap p ro x im ate ly $ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . Thi s is sh eer u n j u s t if i e d s p e c u la ti o n .

I t is n o t base d on any p ro p o sa l made by H oll y. In f a c t , th e DLA 

h as n ev er in q u ir e d wh at H o ll y 's te rm s wo uld be .

H oll y is p re p are d to n e g o ti a te a c o n tr a c t r ig h t now fo r 

a re a so n a b le te rm of y e a rs a t a p ric e which wo uld be more th an 

c o m p e ti ti v e w it h any p r ic e th e Go vernm ent wo uld ha ve to pay a co nt r a c to r to o p e ra te Oz ol and Esc an ab a te rm in a ls . Such a c o n tr a c t wo uld 

pro ve th a t i t is co m p le te ly u n necess ary to sp en d ta x d o lla r s to 

p u rc h ase e it h e r te rm in a l.

The R eq ues t is U n d e rs ta te d , In a c c u ra te , and M is le ad in g

The DLA's budget e sti m a te s a ll e g e th a t fu tu re an nual 

o p e ra ti n g c o s ts a t th e Ozol f a c i l i t y w ill be $2 74 ,0 00 (e q u iv a le n t 

to 27.4 c e n ts p er b a r r e l ) . Thi s e sti m a te is base d on wh at DLA is 

p r e s e n tly payin g H oll y , but in te sti m ony b e fo re th e Hous e A p p ro p ria ti o n s 

M ilit a ry C o n str u c ti o n A p p ro p ri ati o n s Subco m m itte e, th e DLA w it n ess 

ac kn ow le dg ed th a t H oll y is p re s e n tly lo s in g money a t th e 27.4 c e n ts 

p er b a r re l p r ic e . In f a c t , th e DLA w it n e ss s ta te d th a t c u rre n t c o sts 

o f c o n tr a c to r o p e ra ti o n s a t Go vernme nt- ow ned f a c i l i t i e s are ru n n in g 

$1.5 0 p er b a r r e l. T his means th a t th e budget e sti m a te u n d e rs ta te s 

th e fu tu re annual o p e ra tin g c o sts by a f a c to r of alm ost s ix .

O th er DLA e sti m a te s are a ls o s e r io u s ly in a c c u ra te and m is ­

le a d in g . $1 25 ,0 00 is budget ed fo r a c q u is itio n o f e x c lu siv e us e o f 

th e Ozol dock and 6.2 1 a c re s o f a d jo in in g dr y la nd owned by H oll y.

Th ese 6.2 1 a c re s a re s p e c if i c a l ly ex clu ded from th e sc op e of th e 

G over nm en t's o p ti o n , and th e Governme nt ha s n ev er as ked H olly fo r a 

s a le s p r ic e . In f a c t , H oll y lia s fo rm all y ad v is ed DLA th a t i t ha s no 

in te n tio n o f s e l li n g th e 6.2 1 a c re s or i t s fu tu re r ig h ts to us e th e 

Ozol do ck . F u rt h erm o re , th e $1 25 ,000 fig u re is c le a r ly su sp ec t when 

$3 55 ,000 is bu d g ete d to a c q u ir e 8 a c re s o f sta te -o w n ed ti d e w a te r la nd 

whi ch is be low w a te r.

The Go vernm ent Would Pay More and Lose I t s F l e x ib i l it y

M or eo ve r, th e bu dg et e sti m a te in c lu d e s no fu nd s fo r th e 

m ai nte nan ce o f th e Oz ol do ck . But under i t s c o n tr a c t w it h H o ll y , i f 

th e Governme nt e x e rc is e s th e o p ti o n to p u rc h ase th e Ozol f a c i l i t y 

fro m H oll y , H oll y w ill be e n ti t le d to us e th e Oz ol dock fo r tw enty - 

fiv e y ears and to re q u ir e th e Governme nt to m ain ta in i t fo r H o ll y ’ s 

us e fo r th e same tw e n ty -fiv e y e a rs. H oll y has a d v is ed DLA th a t i f 

th e Governme nt a c q u ir e s th e Ozol f a c i l i t y , H oll y w ill dev el op th e 6.2 1 

a c re s fo r co m m er ci al fu e l te rm in a l purp ose s and e x e rc is e i t s f u l l 

r ig h ts to re q u ir e th e Governm ent to m a in ta in th e dock fo r H o ll y 's us e 

fo r tw e n ty -fiv e y e a rs.

I t sh ould be n ote d th a t H oll y w ill o b ta in th ese r ig h ts only 

i f th e Go vernme nt e x e rc is e s th e o p ti o n to p u rc h ase . I f th e Go ve rnme nt do es n o t do so , b u t in s te a d n e g o ti a te s a new c o n tr a c t w it h H o ll y , 

i t r e ta in s th e f l e x i b i l i t y to te rm in a te th a t c o n tr a c t a t any tim e 

and wo uld n o t be lo ck ed in fo r tw e n ty -fiv e y e a rs . The Governm ent 

wo uld a ls o ha ve th e b e n e f it o f H o lly 's e x p e rie n c e , care and i n t e r e s t 

in m an ag ing i t s own p ro p e rty and wo uld n o t be ex po se d to w hate ver 

tu rb u le n c e , tu rn o v e r, and e x tr a c o s ts are a s s o c ia te d w it h c o n tr a c to r 

o p e ra ti o n o f Go ve rnment-o wn ed f a c i l i t i e s .

What Sh ou ld Be Done

h o lly d e s ire s to co n ti n u e to p ro v id e and o p e ra te both th e 

Oz ol an d Esc an ab a f a c i l i t i e s fo r th e Go vernme nt on re aso n a b le and 

c o m p e ti ti v e te rm s. The re is no j u s t i f i c a t i o n fo r th e Governme nt 

to a c q u ir e H o lly 's p ro p e rty . The Go vernme nt w ill n o t sa ve money, b u t 

w ill only in c u r h ig h e r c o sts and a ls o a d v e rse ly a f f e c t th e lo c a l

41-6 38 0 - 7 9 - 5
c om m u n it ie s. In f a c t , fo rm a l r e s o l u t i o n s o p p o s in g th e DLA r e q u e s ts 

hav e been p a s s e d an d fo rw a rd e d to C o n g re ss by th o s e a f f e c te d in 

M a rti n e z , C a li f o r n ia . G ov er nm en t p u rc h a s e h e re i s i n c o n s is t e n t w it h 

th e G o v ern m en t's g e n e ra l p o lic y to o b ta in i t s n e e d s w he re p o s s ib le 

fr om th e p r i v a t e s e c t o r .

B efo re a u th o r iz in g o r a p p r o p r ia tin g fu n d s f o r t h i s p u rc h a s e , 

th e C on g re ss sh o u ld r e q u i r e DLA to p ro v id e a c c u r a te an d co m p le te 

e s tim a te s , b a se d up on th e r e s u l t s o f a f u l l an d f a i r n e g o t i a t i o n w it h 

H o ll y f o r th e f u tu r e o p e r a tio n o f b o th th e O zo l and E sc anaba f u e l 

te r m in a ls . H o ll y b e lie v e s t h a t th e r e s u l t s o f th e n e g o tia tio n w i l l 

be fa v o ra b le to th e G ov er nm en t so t h a t i t w ould be u n n e c e s s a ry to 

se e k o r to ex pen d fu n d s to p u rc h a se th e t e r m in a ls .

IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

OF

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In th e M a tte r o f P ro p o se d )

U. S. G over nm en t A c q u is itio n ) RESOLUTION NO. 7 9 /3 6 1

o f Ozo l T e rm in a l. )

____________________________________ )

WHEREAS, th e O zo l T e rm in a l i s a p r i v a t e l y ow ned f u e l 

te r m in a l f a c i l i t y lo c a te d on 4 4 .9 a c r e s o f la n d in an u n in ­

c o r p o r a te d s e c t i o n o f C o n tr a C o s ta C ounty on th e C a rq u in e z 

S t r a i t n e a r M a rtin e z ;

WHEREAS, C o n tr a C o s ta C ounty r e s i d e n t s in c lu d in g many 

mem be rs o f th e O i l , C h em ic al 6 A to m ic W ork ers L o c a l No. 1-5 

a r e em plo yed a t th e O zo l T e rm in a l;

WHEREAS, H o ll y C o r p o r a tio n , ow ne r o f th e O zo l P i e r , 

h a s p ro v id e d th e D e fe n se L o g is t i c s Age nc y w ith s a t i s f a c t o r y 

s e r v i c e o f p e tro le u m o f f l o a d i n g , s t o r a g e and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n 

a t th e O zo l T e rm in a l f o r a lm o s t tw e n ty y e a r s , w hic h in c lu d e 

ti m e s o f m i l i t a r y c o n f l i c t ;

WHEREAS, H o lly C o r p o r a tio n h a s p a id s u b s t a n t i a l p r o p e r ty 

ta x e s to C o n tr a C o s ta C ounty w ith r e s p e c t t o i t s o w n e rsh ip o f 

th e O zo l T e rm in a l, w hic h ta x e s am ounte d to S ix ty F our T housa nd 

E ig h t H undre d D o lla r s ($ 6 4 ,8 0 0 ) f o r th e f i s c a l y e a r 1 9 7 8 -1 9 7 9 ;

WHEREAS, th e D e fe n se L o g is t i c s A ge nc y h a s r e q u e s te d an 

a p p r o p r i a t i o n fr om th e U n it e d S t a t e s C o n g re s s in e x c e s s o f 

T h re e M illio n D o lla r s ($ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ) t o a c q u ir e th e O zo l T e rm in a l;

WHEREAS, th e U n it e d S t a t e s G over nm en t a lr e a d y own s 

s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t f a c i l i t i e s in C o n tr a C o s ta C o u n ty , in c lu d in g 

th e N aval Weapo ns S t a t i o n a t C oncord an d th e P o in t M o la te f a c i l i t y
63

a t Ri ch mon d w hic h i s s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s ig n e d f o r th e o f f l o a d i n g o f 

p e tro le u m p r o d u c ts ;

WHEREAS, t h i s C ounty d e s i r e s t o p r e s e r v e em pl oym en t 

o p p o r t u n i t i e s an d p r i v a t e o w n e rsh ip o f p r o p e r ty w ith in i t s 

b o u n d a r ie s ;

AND WHEREAS, th e a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h i s p r o p e r ty by th e 

U n it e d S t a t e s G over nm en t i s u n n e c e s s a ry ;

NOW, THEREFORE, th e B oard o f S u p e r v is o r s o f C o n tr a 

C o s ta C ounty r e s o l v e s t h a t i t i s n o t i n th e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f 

th e p e o p le o f C o n tr a C o s ta C ounty o r o f th e ta x p a y e r s o f th e 

U n it e d S t a t e s f o r th e U n it e d S t a t e s G over nm en t to p u rc h a s e th e 

O zo l T e rm in a l f o r th e f o llo w in g r e a s o n s :

1 . W h il e th e U n it e d S t a t e s G over nm en t a lr e a d y ow ns 

s u b s t a n t i a l r e a l p r o p e r ty in C o n tr a C o s ta C o u n ty , th e p u rc h a s e 

o f th e O zo l f a c i l i t y w ould f u r t h e r an d u n n e c e s s a r i l y d e c r e a s e 

t h i s C o u n ty ’ s p r o p e r ty ta x b a s e ;

2 . T he em p lo y ees o f th e O zo l T e rm in a l w i l l b e i n d a n ­

g e r o f l o s i n g t h e i r em pl oym en t i f th e f a c i l i t y i s ow ned by th e 

U n ite d S t a t e s G overn m ent, a m a tte r o f d e e p c o n c e rn t o t h i s 

B o a rd , to th e O il C h em ic al & A to m ic W ork ers L o c a l No. 1 - 5 , to 

th e a f f e c t e d e m p lo y e e s , an d to H o lly C o r p o r a tio n ;

3 . C o n tra C o s ta C ounty i s a n x io u s to f u r t h e r th e 

d e v e lo p m e n t o f p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e w ith in i t s b o r d e r s an d th e 

d e p a r t u r e o f H o ll y C o r p o r a tio n , a b u s in e s s o f lo n g s ta n d in g 

r e p u te w ith in th e com m unit y, w ould b e c o n t r a r y t o t h a t g o a l;

4 . Num er ou s p r i v a t e f a c i l i t i e s a lr e a d y e x i s t in t h i s 

C o u n ty , a lo n g th e C a rq u in e z S t r a i t , an d i n th e San F r a n c is c o Bay 

A re a g e n e r a l l y w hic h c a n p ro v id e p e tro le u m o f f l o a d i n g , s t o r a g e 

an d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s t o th e U n ite d S t a t e s G over nm en t on

a c o m p e titiv e b a s i s , a s s u r in g th e lo w e s t p o s s i b l e c o s t t o th e 

ta x p a y e r s ;

5 . Th e U n it e d S t a t e s G over nm en t a lr e a d y ow ns and o p e r ­

a t e s a m a jo r p e tro le u m dock f a c i l i t y i n C o n tr a C o s ta C ounty 

lo c a te d a t P o in t M o la te , w hic h c a n p r o v id e o f f l o a d i n g , s t o r a g e 

an d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s t o th e G overn m ent.
64

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED t h a t a c e r t i f i e d copy o f t h i s 

r e s o l u t i o n s h a l l be t r a n s m i t t e d by th e S e c r e ta r y o f t h i s B oard 

to th e S u b co m m it te es on M i l i t a r y C o n s tr u c tio n o f th e a p p r o p r ia t i o n s C o m m it te es o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s Hou se o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s

an d th e U n it e d S t a t e s S e n a te .

v o t e :

PASSED by th e B oard on A p r il 1 0 , 19 79 by th e fo llo w in g

AYES: S u p e r v is o r s T. P o w e rs, S. W. 

E. H. H a s s e l t i n e .

M cP ea k,

NOES: N on e.

ABSENT: S u p e r v is o r R. I . S c h ro d e r.

ABST AIN: S u p e r v is o r N. C. F ah den ( f o r 

t h a t sh e ow ns s to c k i n H o ll y

th e r e a s o n 

C o r p o r a tio n ) .

CERTIFIED COPY

c c : S u b co m m it te es v ia H o ll y C orp . 

H o ll y C o rp o ra tio n 

C ounty C o u n sel 

C ounty A d m in is tr a to r

1 ce rt if y (lin t th is Is a fu ll, true & co rrec t copy o' 

•c o rl p ’r*?’’ document w hi ch Is on file in my offic e 

<1 th nt \va-'. passed Ar adopted by the Bo ard of 

’ •v'rvb o i:. of Co ntra Costa Cou nty. C alif orn ia , on 

c dp.’e shov.n. A T T E S T : J. R. OLS SO X. Cou nty

C le rk & ex -o fficio Cle rk o f said Bo ard of Su pe rvisors, 

by Deput> Clerk.

RESOLUTION NO. 7 9 /3 6 1

Jfry Craig

o aA P R _ L 0 1070

JOHN SWETT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Apr il 23, 1979

C h a i r m a n , Milit ary Construction Sub committee of th e 

Senate Appropri ati ons Committee

Dirksen Senate Off ice Building, Room 1239 

Washington, D.C. 20510

Please note t he attach ed resolution pas sed by the Board of Trustees of the 

John Svett Un ified School District.

I hope y ou will take this into con sideration dur ing de liberations con cerning 

the Ozol O ption b efo re the Mi lit ary Co nst ruc tio n Subcommi ttee of the Senate 

Arms Serv ices Committee.

Thank you.

D is tr ic t
65

RESOLUTION 79-A

OF THE

JOHN SWETT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 9**525

WHEREAS, the Ozol Terminal is a privately owned fuel terminal facility 

located on M . 9 acres of land in an unincorporated section of Contra Costa 

County on the Carquinez Strait near Martinez;

WHEREAS, Contra Costa County residents including many members of the 

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Local No. 1-5 are employed at the Ozol 

Terminal;

WHEREAS, Holly Corporation, owner of the Ozol Pier, has provided the 

Defense Logistics Agency with satisfactory service of petroleum offloading, 

storage and transportation at the Ozol Terminal for almost twenty year s, 

which include times of military conflict;

WHEREAS, Holly Corporation has paid substantial property taxes to Contra 

Costa County with respect to its ownership of the Ozol Terminal, which taxes 

amounted to Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($6H,800) for the fiscal 

year 1978-79;

WHEREAS, the Defense Logistics Agency has requested an appropriation from 

the United States Congress in excess of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) 

to acquire the Ozol Terminal;

WHEREAS, the United States Government already owns substantial port 

facilities in Contra Costa County, including the Naval Weapons Station at 

Concord and the Point Molate facility at Richmond which is specifically designed 

for the offloading of petroleum products;

WHEREAS, this County desires to preserve employment opportunities and 

private ownership of property within its boundaries;

AND WHEREAS, the acquisition of this property by the United States Government is unnecessary;

HOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Trustees of the John Swett Unified School 

District resolves that it is not in the best interests of the people of the 

John Swett Unified School District or of the taxpayers of the United States for 

the United States Government to purchase the Ozol Terminal for the following 

reasons:

1. While the United States Government already owns substantial real 

property in Contra Costa County, the purchase of the Ozol facility would further 

and unnecessarily decrease this County's property tax base;

2. The employees of the Ozol Terminal will be in danger of losing their 

employment if the facility is owned by the United States Government, a matter 

of deep concern to this Board, to the Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers Local No. 

1-5, to the affected employees, and to Holly Corporation;

3. John Swett Unified School District is anxious to further the development 

of private enterprise within its borders and the departure of Holly Corporation, 

a business of long standing repute within the community, would be contrary to 

that goal;
66

1». numerous private facilities already exist in this County, along the 

Carquinez Strait, and in the San Francisco Bay Area generally which can provide 

petroleum offloading, storage and transportation services to the United States 

Government on a competitive basis, assuring the lowest possible cost to the 

taxpayers;

5. The United States Government already owns and operates a major petroleum 

dock facility in Contra Costa County located at Point Molate, which can provide 

offloading, storage and transportation services to the Government.

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution shall be 

transmitted by the Secretary of this Board to the Subcommittees on Military 

Construction of the appropriations Committees of the United States House of 

Representatives and the United States Senate.

"Glenn Dufour, A y /

Secretary to the/Ooverning Board
67

Submitted Questions

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

QUESTION: The FY 1980 budget re q u e st c o n ta in s $4 .3 m il li o n fo r 

pr oc ure m en t o f b ulk fu e l te rm in a ls a t O zo l, C a li fo rn ia ($ 3,6 50,0 00) 

and Esc an ab a, Mich igan ($ 600,0 00). Both are c u rre n tl y c o n tr a c to r 

owned and op era te d fo r th e U .S . go ve rn m en t. I t i s pro pose d to e x e rc is e c o n tr a c t o p ti o n s whe reb y th e go vernm ent co uld p urc hase th e 

f a c i l i t i e s and conti nue t h e i r o p e ra ti o n a t an nual sums f a r le s s th an 

a n tic ip a te d i f new c o n tr a c ts were n e g o ti a te d . The in vest m ent is 

a n tic ip a te d to am ort iz e in 2 .5 y e a rs fo r Ozo l and 1.2 y e a rs fo r 

Esc an ab a. Is c o st av oid an ce th e b a s ic re aso n fo r th e pro pose d purch ase , o r are th e re o th e r b e n e f its to Gov ernmen t ow ne rshi p o f th e 

f a c i l i t i e s ?

ANSWER: The fu e l te rm in a ls are s t i l l co n si d ere d v i t a l to th e 

m is si on of th e Defen se Dep ar tm en t and e x e rc is in g th e o p ti o n to p u rch as e unde r e x is ti n g c o n tr a c ts is co n si d ere d to be th e mo st c o st 

b e n e f ic ia l method o f r e ta in in g th e se f a c i l i t i e s .

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

QUESTION: I f th e Go vernment e x e rc is e d i t s o p ti o n to p u rc h ase, 

wo uld th e D ef en se L o g is ti c s Agency assume o p e ra ti o n o f th e f a c i l i ­

t i e s , o r wo uld th ey co n ti n u e to be c o n tr a c to r-ru n ?

ANSWER: DLA would ass um e r e s p o n s ib ility fo r th e o p e ra ti o n b u t 

wou ld o p e ra te th e f a c i l i t y unde r a se rv ic e c o n tr a c t as we o p e ra te a l l 

o th e r Government-ow ned f u e l te rm in a ls man aged by DLA.

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

QUESTION: C e n tr a l to th e s e p ro p o sa ls i s th e c o n te n ti o n th a t 

annual c o s ts would be s ig n if ic a n tly h ig h e r i f th e c o n tr a c to r re ta in e d 

ow ne rs hi p and a new o p e ra ti n g c o n tr a c t l e t . In th e case o f O zo l, 

annual le a s in g c o s ts a re e sti m a te d a t $1 .9 m il li o n more th an p re se n t 

fe e s , comp are d to abou t $274 th ous an d i f go ve rnmen t-o wne d.

What i s th e b a s is fo r th e p ro je c te d $1 .9 m ill io n a d d it io n a l co st?

The c o s t of GOCO o p e ra ti o n , $2 74 ,000 a n n u a ll y , would appear to 

eq u ate to a ch arg e o f abou t 27.5 c e n ts p e r b a r r e l; th e Su bcom mittee 

i s aw are th a t o th e r su ch arr angem ents u su a ll y ru n be tw ee n $1 .0 0 and 

$1 .2 5 p er b a r r e l. What i s th e p r o b a b ility th a t any co mmercial fi rm 

would ag re e to o p e ra te and m ain ta in th i s te rm in a l fo r su ch a low sum?

Doe sn ’t th e $2 74 ,000 a n n u all y eq u ate to th e ch arg es now in 

e f f e c t fo r th e c u rre n t c o n tr a c t — which th e c o n tr a c to r i n s i s t s i s a 

lo s in g p ro p o sit io n ?

ANSWER: We e sti m a te th a t a p ru d en t c o n tr a c to r wo uld wa nt to 

e a rn , a t minim um, a 10 p e rc e n t re tu rn on h is in v estm en t. In th i s 

c a se , we c o n sid e r th e p re s e n t v a lu e o f th e te rm in a l f a c i l i t y to co ns t i t u t e h is in v estm en t. Sin ce th e p re se n t v alu e o f th e f a c i l i t y i s 

e sti m ate d a t $19 m ill io n , a minimum re tu rn of $1 .9 m ill io n is a 

c o n se rv a ti v e e sti m a te o f a d d it io n a l c o s t to th e Go vernment i f we f a i l 

to e x e rc is e th e o p ti o n to p u rc h ase. T his would be in a d d it io n to th e 

no rm al c o s t o f o p e ra ti o n s which in c lu d e m ai nte nan ce and r e p a ir o f th e 

f a c i l i t i e s , u t i l i t i e s , s e c u r ity sy st em s, o p e ra ti n g p ers o n n el and f i r e
68

and environmental prot ection systems. If the option to purchase is 

exercised, the Government would then own the termin al facility and 

there would be no basis for a contractor to include a return on 

investment rate in his service charge costs. Therefore, the annual 

cost to the Government would be substantially lower under a Gove rnment-owned Contractor -operated facility contract.

The $274,000 figure shown on supplemental form DD1391c is 

incorrect since it represents the annual cost of the current contract 

terms in lieu of estimated future costs. This figure was not used in 

determining cost effectiveness of the Government’s exercising of its 

option to buy. In actuality, we estimate the first annual cost of 

operat ion and main tenance after we exercise the option to purchase 

to be approximately $1.17 million. We would rely on competition to 

provide us w ith the most favor able rate possible for terminal operation of a Gover nment-owned Contractor-operated facility. Should we 

fail to exercise the option to purchase, we anticipate the annual 

cost to the Government could reach $3.85 mill ion for operation of 

the Ozol facility, based on current known storage costs in the 

San Francisco Bay area.

Yes, the $274,000 figure represents the c urren t annual c ontract 

price for the Ozol terminal operation. We are not awar e that the 

contractor is operating at a loss at the present time.

Defense Logistics Agency

QUESTION: Another premise of the budget reques t is that once 

the current contract expires, the contractor will be free to demand 

exhorbitant rates under a new contract. Is he truly in such a 

monopolistic position, or are there other firms with in the 

San Fra ncisco area which might offer a competitive restraint to 

price?

ANSWER: If we elect not to exercise the option to purchase, 

Holly Corpora tion would obtai n sole ownership of the terminal facility. The existing contract would expire and the Government would 

have no legal access to service through the facility. Holly would 

be able to charge whatever rate the market will bear and, since the 

facility is vital to our m ilitary requirements in the area, we would 

have no choice but to agree to his terms. As an alternative, Holly 

could elect to sell the facility to the h ighest bidder, thus re alizing a substantial gain over his initial capita l investment, which 

he had already amortized durin g the first five years. The succeeding contractor w ould then enjoy the same po sition as Holl y with 

respect to being able to charge the highest marke t rate for providing 

our required services. This wou ld leave the Gov ernment in an 

extrem ely vulne rable position. Conversely, if we exercise the option 

to purchase, experience has shown that there is amp le competition 

avail able to assure us of a fair and reasonable price for terminal 

opera tions and maint enance und er Government-owned Contractoroperat ed conditions.

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

QUESTION: With respect to the Ozol purchase price, $125,000 is 

included for the purchase of 6.21 acres owned by the contractor.
69

How was th is p ric e dete rm in ed, p a r t ic u l a r ly when $3 55 ,000 is 

re q u ir e d fo r ti d e w a te r la nds?

How w ill th e Government o b ta in th i s la nd? I t would appear th a t , 

sin c e th i s p a rc e l — and r ig h ts to i t — a re g ra n te d In c o n tr a c t (an d 

re cogniz ed by th e Governm ent) th a t em in en t dom ain would not be 

a p p li c a b le .

Would th e f a c i l i t y be u se ab le w it h o u t th i s 6.2 1 a cre s?

ANSWER: The a p p ra is a l of th e Ozol te rm in a l was pre pare d by th e 

Sa cram en to D i s t r i c t Co rps of E n g in eers . The v a lu e s we re p ro je c te d 

to FY 19 80 . The v a lu e of th e 6.2 1 a c re p a rc e l was det er m in ed by a 

re vie w of th e s a le s and l i s t i n g s of co m pa ra bl e p ro p e r ti e s in th e 

g e n e ra l a re a of th e Oz ol te rm in a l. A ft e r a n a ly s is of th e com par ab le s, 

i t was co nc lu de d th a t th e f a i r m ar ke t v alu e of th e 6.2 1 a c re s is 

$2 0, 00 0 p er a c re . Value ass ig n ed to ti d e w a te r la n d s in C a li fo rn ia 

i s b e se t by unk nown s. The re is no a c ti v e m ar ke t In th e s a le o f su ch 

la nd sin c e i t is c o n tr o ll e d e n tir e ly by th e s t a t e . In th e abse nce of 

a m ar ke t v a lu e , se v e ra l an a ly se s we re made to re ach an o rd e r of magn it u d e fo r a re a so n a b le v a lu e . The h ig h e s t e sti m ate d c o s t dev el op ed 

th ro ugh th e se a n a ly se s was us ed in re c o g n it io n o f th e c o n sid e ra b le 

unknowns e x is tin g in o rd e r to giv e th e Go ver nm ent maximum la t it u d e 

in n e g o ti a ti o n s . The Government w ill only pa y wh at i s c o n sid ere d to 

be a f a i r and re a so n a b le p ric e th ro ugh a c ti v e n e g o ti a ti o n s and in 

c o n sid e ra ti o n of th e annual c o s t now p aid to th e s t a te fo r ea se m en t 

a c ro ss s t a te la n d .

Funds a re re q u e ste d fo r purc hase o f th e co n tr acto r- o w n ed 6.2 1 

a c re s , and h is e x c lu siv e use of dock f a c i l i t i e s in o rd er to p ro v id e 

th e Government w it h a t o t a l l y un encumb ere d te rm in a l f a c i l i t y . In 

view of th e f a c t th a t H olly C o rp o ra ti o n has never e x e rc is e d th e 

e x c lu siv e us e r i g h ts sin c e th e c la u se was in c o rp o ra te d in 19 69 , I t 

is our In te n t to n e g o ti a te a f a i r and re a so n a b le p ric e fo r h is 

re li n q u is h m e n t o f su ch r i g h ts . The Co rps of En gine ers-reco mmen de d 

a p p ra is a l v alu e o f $2 0, 00 0 per a c re i s co n si d ere d q u it e re a so n a b le 

comp ared to th e $2 ,5 00 p er a c re th a t H ol ly C o rp o ra ti o n re im bur se d 

th e Government fo r e x c lu siv e r ig h ts to th e la nd in 19 69 . We would 

n o t norm all y c o n sid e r a p p li c a ti o n o f em in en t dom ain u n le ss a s i tu a ­

ti o n e s ta b lis h in g a n a ti o n a l em ergency sh ou ld o c c u r. In th e event 

th a t a m u tu all y a g re e a b le so lu ti o n can not be re ached w it h re g ard to 

purc hase o f H o ll y ’s e x c lu siv e r i g h ts , we would be a b le to o p e ra te 

s a t i s f a c t o r i l y un der a jo in t- u s e s itu a tio n and would ho no r th e term s 

ag re ed upo n in th e 1969 m o d if ic a ti o n .

The fu e l te rm in a l would be e n ti r e l y u sa b le w it h o u t th e 6.2 1 

a cre p a rc e l owned by th e c o n tr a c to r.

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

QUESTION: Assuming th a t th e FY 1980 D ef en se Bu dg et Is base d on 

s im ila r p re m is e s, how much i s budget ed in O&M fo r o p e ra ti o n of th e se 

te rm in a ls ?

ANSWER: None. Th ese fu e l te rm in a l f a c i l i t i e s , which are oper ­

ate d un de r T itle 10, U. S. Code 23 88 , are fu nd ed from th e D efen se 

L o g is ti c s Agency (DLA) p o rti o n o f th e Defen se Sto ck Fund. Fo r th e 

p e ri o d of FY 1980 p r io r to e x p ir a ti o n o f e x is tin g c o n tr a c ts , fu nd s 

w ill ha ve be en o b li g a te d un de r th o se c o n tr a c ts . Su bs eq ue nt to 

governm ent purc hase o p ti o n , th e fo ll o w in g fu nd s ha ve be en prog ramed 

in th e DLA Sto ck Fund bu d g et:

O zo l, CA 

Esc an ab a, MI 

New ington , NH

$4 04 ,000

$6 69 ,000

$1 53 ,000
70

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

The subcommittee will be recessed u ntil Monday, March 5, at 10

o’clock in the morning. 

[Whereupon, at 12 p.m.,

was recessed, to reconvene

Monday, February 26, the subcommittee 

at 10 a.m., Monday, March 5.]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPR OPRIATIO NS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980

MONDAY, MARCH 5, 1979

U.S. Senate,

Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropr iations,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 3:10 p.m., in room 1223, Everett 

McKinley Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Paul Laxalt presiding.

Present: Senators Huddleston (chairman) and Laxalt.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of Defense

STATEMENT OF PERRY J. FLIAKAS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND HOUSING)

ACCOMPANIED BY:

LT. GEN. RICHARD H. GROVES, DEPUTY ADVISER TO SECRETARY 

OF DEFENSE ON NATO AFFAIRS

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Senator Laxalt. I thin k since the chairman has been delayed 

and may be for a little bit longer, if it is all righ t with you 

gentlemen, we will proceed with the hearing because we are all 

operating unde r tim e constraints.

Mr. Begin is scheduled to speak to us at 4 o’clock. I will cause to 

be placed in the record the opening remarks of the chairman as 

well as mine in the interest of time.

[The stateme nts follow:]

Statement of Senator Huddleston

The meeting will please come to o rder.

Our hea ring this afternoon concerns the overall topic of NATO and NATO support progra ms. Both the amounts and mechanics of funding for NATO have been 

subjects of interest in the past, and will certainly rem ain so in the cu rre nt and 

fut ure budgets.

The session today has been structur ed on a functional basis in ord er to provide 

the Subcommittee with a clearer und erstan din g of not only the projects which make 

up the budget request, but of the und erly ing mission assumptions which drive the 

budget, as well. Such a perspective is absolutely necessary, par ticula rly in view of 

incre asing budget equity and c ertain init iatives which will be discussed later.

We are pleased to again have as our prin cipal witness the Hon orable Perry J. 

Fliakas, Deputy Assistant Secreta ry of Defense for Installations and Housing. He is 

also accompanied by representativ es of the mil itary dep artme nts and of the U.S. 

Mission to NATO.

Considering th at we will be dealing with are as of a highly sensitiv e or classified 

natur e, it will be necessary to go into executive session at some point. It is my 

inte ntio n, however, to proceed in open session for as long is practical.

(71)
72

Statement of Senator Laxalt

Mr. Chairm an, let me reint era te my sta tem ent of la st week th at I look forward to 

working with you on this bill and I c ertainly will tak e my responsibilities seriously.

I am looking forward to listen ing to toda y’s testimon y from Mr. Fliakas and the 

othe r witnesses on the NATO infras tru ctu re and European construction programs. I 

understand th at the NATO program has been and continu es to be one of the more 

controversial programs in this bill. I expect we will all be better informed on this 

program after this hearing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

19 79 APPROPRIATION AN D 19 80 TARGET REQUEST

Senator Laxalt. Mr. Secretary, if you will proceed.

Mr. Fliakas. Mr. Chairm an, I am pleased to appear before your 

committee to present the fiscal year 1980 Department of Defense 

request for construction in Europe. Included in the request is 

$435.9 million, of which $150 million is for the United State s share 

of the NATO infrastructure program. The total is $209 million less 

than requested in fiscal year 1979. By major construction category, 

the program is comprised as follows.

[The chart follows:]

[In thousands ot dollars]

Construction category Army

NATO

Air Defense InfraNavy Force agencies structure Total

Operational/training fac ilities .........

Maintenance fa cilities. .................

Supply facilities. ........................

Medical/adm inistrative fa cilities. ....

Housing/community facilities.........

Utilitie s. ..................................

Variou s. ..................................

Tota l. ..........................

19,649 3,000 50,670

31,710 1,500 2,720

10,900 3,800 12,000

6,900 2,800 2,650

47,450 19,200

32,891 24,250

149,500 35,350 87,240

......................... 73,319

......................... 35,930

......................... 26,700

......................... 12,350

13,815 .......... 80,465

......................... 57,141

.......... 150,000 150,000

13,815 150,000 435,905

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION NEE DS IN EUROPE

Mr. Fliakas. I have elected to address the Department of Defense military construction needs in Europe as a separate stat ement for three important reasons.

First, this committee as well as the other congressional committees dealing with construction have indicated a grea t deal of in terest in this portion of our program, and methods of financing.

Second, the interrelationship of this program with NATO 

common infrastructure program is complex and sometimes difficult 

to understand without a clear and logical exposition of th eir linkage.

Finally, construction in Europe is essential, if we and NATO are 

to gain the full benefits of the defense and deterrence which our 

programed levels of forces and equipment and our readiness initiatives should provide. This matter has the personal attentio n of the 

Secretary of Defense who has directed a careful review and analysis to assure that the construction programs presented for congressional approval solidly support these objectives.

I have spoken to the linkage between the U.S. military construction programs and those of NATO within the NATO infrastruc ture
73

program. Tha t program provides the military facilities required for 

joint use of two or more NATO countries for individual users when 

the facilities are essential to wartim e operations or peacetime 

training of NATO committed forces. Construction of such facilities 

is jointly financed by members of the alliance on an agreed costsharin g formula and is managed on the basis of agreed rules, 

procedures, and standards. The U.S. share of these costs in the 

coming years is expected to be approximately 25 percent.

As a general rule, logistic and personnel support type facilities 

have been viewed as a national responsibility of the nation concerned, and, therefore, not eligible for cost sharing under the infrastructure program. We regard this rule as generally favorable 

to U.S. interests inasmuch as the U.S. ground forces constitute only 

10 percent of total alliance forces and similarly, the United State s 

operates 16 percent of the total alliance tactical and reconnaissance a ir bases.

Considering the percentage differences between U.S. force contribution and the cost-sharing formula, we must weigh carefully our 

financial interests against alliance defense interests before proposing new categories of infrastructure eligibility.

Therefore, we th ink you will agree that we should continue U.S. 

funding for some of the personnel support projects as well as 

certain logistics facilities which we need, rat her tha n opening up 

the disproportionate potential economic liability which would be 

incurred if we were to seek infr astructure eligibility for such 

projects.

BALANCE OF SERVICE, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTR UCTURE 

FUNDED PROGRAM

At this juncture, I would like to say we recognize and endorse 

the concerns of Congress and especially this committee, that to the 

maximum extent feasible our construction needs in Europe which 

are in support of NATO wartime operations be met through infrastru cture funding. The purpose of my statemen t today is to outline 

the approach which we will take to accomplish that objective.

In essence DOD policies, plans, and programs will balance the 

need for the timely acquisition of facilities required to meet military readiness objectives, with a sensible mix of funding responsibility for such objectives between NATO infr astructure and U.S. 

military construction.

Toward these ends we are aggressively seeking to broaden and 

expand the NATO eligibility criteria to cover certain classes of 

facilities which heretofore have not been eligible. A careful assessment of the total potential costs which we might incur if our allies 

should claim eligibility for similar facility needs is a major consideration.

I want to make it clear, however, tha t there will be some cases, 

where because of overriding military urgency and/o r protection of 

U.S. defense interests or resources, we will have to seek congressional approval for minimum prefinancing of selected projects. In 

all such instances we will be prepared to demo nstrate that such 

projects will be planned for programing by the United State s for a 

future infrastru cture slice as soon as eligibility or other qualifying 

aspects such as availability of NATO funds have been resolved The
74

recoupment of such projects would be requested as soon as the 

essential NATO action is completed.

The results of efforts to carefully screen this type of facility and 

reduce the number of requests for prefinancing are obvious in the 

fiscal year 1980 program. The proportion of such requests in the 

total European program this year is only 19 percent as compared 

with 70 percent in fiscal year 1979. This represents a dramatic 

restatement and direction of our program.

There will be projects in a nnu al programs which will be proposed 

for U.S. unilateral funding with no inte nt to seek the ir eligibility 

within infrastru cture now or in the future. These will be the types 

of projects, mentioned earlier, which because of thei r category or 

because of potential economic liability to the United States would 

be neithe r appropriate nor in our interests to atte mpt to include in 

infrastructure.

U.S. ROLE IN NATO ALLIANCE

Before getting into a discussion of p articulars of this yea r’s program, I thin k it would be helpful to review the present circumstances pertaining to the NATO alliance and the role of the United 

States in contributing to the common defense of Europe.

The nature of the thr eat has led the United States to commit the 

most modern and effective weapons systems to the NATO alliance. 

Over the next few years new systems being deployed to Europe will 

create an operational demand for a large part of the construction 

required in the immediate timeframe as well as near future years.

Despite these substantial improvements, however, in a quick 

strike attack scenario, Pact forces could commit land force battle 

units especially those of armo r and artillery, which would far 

outnumber those immediately available to the Alliance.

Similarly, the ir combined tactical air units would have an initial 

superiority in numbers. Another advantage which is potentially 

crucial is their close proximity to edges of the expected forward 

battle areas with corollary short lines of communication and 

supply.

Under these circumstances the Alliance defense must be structured to provide rapid reinforcement of our forces in place at the 

time of attack, which in turn, depends on prepositioning of vital 

stocks of equipment and ammunition.

With respect to our Alliance partners, the ir reserves of manpower and material are close a t hand in country, and in most instances 

within a very short distance of the battle areas. In the case of the 

United States, however, we must look at a line of communication 

stretching almost 4,000 miles and involving seaborne resupply of 

heavy materiel with its inherent dangers and delays.

In light of these facts, it is obvious tha t if the United State s is to 

take timely measures toward the defense of Europe, actions are 

required which will permit response quickly and decisively with 

reinforcing units. Just as im portantly, it must be assured that upon 

arrival in theater, those units can be equipped from prepositioned 

stocks and moved quickly to the combat areas.
15

NATO LONG-TERM DEFENSE PROGRAM (LTDP)

A concerted approach to these two areas, rapid reinforcement 

and capabilities for sustained combat, is of primary concern to 

SACEUR. They were among the high priority items in the long 

term defense program (LTDP) approved by the NATO summit 

meeting of th e heads of state which took place in Washington on 

May 31, 1978. That high level meeting approved a series of planned 

actions which could substantially improve the defense capabilities 

of th e Alliance under an attack or thr eat of attack. As a result, a 

number of objectives have been established which involve the need 

for facilities construction. The mix of Slice XXXI of the NATO 

infrastruc ture program clearly illustrate s this fact inasmuch as 

almost $625 million of the total derives from moving toward these 

objectives.

In recognition of the substantial amounts of construction required to implement the LTDP objectives, NATO acknowledges the 

need for a much larger infrastructure program for the next 5-year 

slice package for the years 1980 throug h 1984.

Subsequent to the May sum mit meeting I held numerous conversations with the U.S. Mission to NATO on the imperative need to 

press strongly in the appropriate NATO forum for a greatly expanded infrastructure program commensurate to the LTDP initiatives agreed to by the heads of state.

As a follow-on to these efforts in October of last year I headed 

the U.S. delegation to the annual infr astructure conference in 

Brussels and reite rated strong U.S. support for Alliance agreement 

on an expanded infrastructure effort.

As a resu lt of the conviction by all concerned of the need for 

such a program, including the consistent support of the Secretary 

of Defense, we believe the new 5-year infrastructure ceiling sta rting in 1980 should be at least thre e times the size of the previous 5- 

year infrastructure program.

Assuming the United States maintains its past proportionate 

share of previous annu al infrastructure slices, the benefit in terms 

of construction for U.S. forces, could be expected to average about 

$300 million of construction. Of course, there will be a concomitant 

rise in the U.S. annu al contribution to the cost sharing of this 

increased program.

Now, having sketched an overview of where we stand with 

regard to NATO objectives in Europe and the U.S. role there, I 

would like to address the specifics of the military construction 

program in Europe for fiscal year 1980.

INFR ASTRUC TUR E SLICE XXXI

Again, as I have mentioned earlier, because of the close linkage 

between infrastructure and military construction I will also discuss 

pertinent aspects of the c urrently recommended calendar year 1980 

[Slice XXXI] infrastructure program which repre sents the first 

year of the 5-year NATO program package.

First, with respect to Slice XXXI as presently configured, I can 

inform the committee that it contains some $315 million for U.S. 

user projects which otherwise would have to be U.S. funded. This 

within a total slice value of $740 million for national user projects.
76

Thus, in this first slice of the new package, we are securing financing for 43 percent of the dollar value of the national user projects 

in the entire slice. Just as important, the U.S. share contains 

approximately $100 million for recoupment of previously prefinanced projects which I know has been a matter of continuing 

concern to the committee. This is by far the largest recoupment 

provided to the United States in many years and reflects a substantial step toward reducing the current unrecouped balance. We will 

continue to emphasize a faster rate of recoupment for prefinanced 

projects.

We believe that we can maintain a high level of recoupment over 

the next 3 years. I urge therefore that the committees work with 

us in approving a policy which will allow us to continue prefinancing certain essential projects as required.

Further, Slice XXXI also contains $122.4 million toward provision of POMCUS facilities (prepositioning of material configured in 

unit sets) which is presently programed for the first U.S. division 

equivalent committed to reinforcement of Europe in wartime. This 

reflects early NATO recognition of the necessity to finance this 

prepositioned storage which has not heretofore been eligible. It also 

offers encouragement t ha t similar classes of prepositioned ammunition and the ater reserve stocks may also soon be recognized as 

eligible for infrastructu re funding.

I think all of the foregoing is illustrative of our positive response 

to the concerns of Congress regarding construction in Europe, and 

reflects a substantia l measure of success for our ongoing efforts.

FISCAL YEAR 1980 EUR OPE AN MILITARY CONSTRUC TION PROGRAM

Now, I would like to address the content of th e fiscal year 1980 

military construction program in Europe generally and speak specifically to some large projects or classes of facilities contained in 

the program. The specifics of justification for such projects will be 

addressed in more detail by each military departm ent represen tative when they present their individual programs.

In Germany, which is the centrum for the majority of the U.S. 

Army forces in Europe, the program provides for construction totaling $150 million. A substantial amount of the construction required would go to improve and modernize living and working 

facilities for troop units stationed in some of the obsolete and 

deteriorated Kasernes taken over at the end of World War II 

almost 35 years ago. Many of these are more tha n 80 years old and 

the living and working conditions deplorable. Some $54 million of 

the Army’s request is devoted to improvement of barracks, medical 

and community facilities.

Othe r major elements of the Army’s request are directed toward 

modernizing tactical equipm ent maintenance facilities and hardstands for aircraft, tank s and other motorized equipment, provision 

of operations and modern training facilities, and for facilities required to permit uploading combat vehicles with ammunition.

For the Air Force in Europe the total of construction requested is 

$87 million. This represents a marked reduction from previous 

years’ requests. The reason for this reduction is the determination 

to concentrate financing of the remaining substantial airc raft shel-
77

ter program within infrastructure. $108 million of Slice XXXI is 

currently earm arked for shelters. The major categories of the Air 

Force request for U.S. MILCON in fiscal year 1980 are operations 

and training facilities; munitions storage facilities, personnel protection facilities at essential operations centers located on key installations, and personnel housing and support facilities.

The Navy’s program for the European area is $35 million. This 

includes $118 million for Iceland, and other projects at Sigonella, 

Italy; Rota, Spain; and Scotland.

Additionally, in support of the children of dependent families 

stationed with forces in Europe, the DOD dependent schools has 

programed a total of nine schools or school additions for a total 

estimated cost of $114 million.

SUMMARY OF STATEMENT

In summary, Mr. Chairman, that is a highly synopsized description of the Department of Defense fiscal year 1980 program for 

construction in support of U.S. forces in Europe. I have attempted 

to address the concerns of this committee as voiced during last 

year’s hearing, and I hope t ha t you have found my response to be 

candid and forthcoming.

As stated at the outset, we have carefully examined total construction needs in Europe to determine which are in the U.S. interest 

to finance within infrastru cture, and we are taking positive steps 

to provide them through that procedure. We have affirmed tha t 

there are some facility needs which are essential, but which cannot 

or should not be financed within infrastructu re. In those cases, 

some of which are included in this year’s program, the DOD requests appropriations as a U.S. responsibility. Also, as noted, we 

will press for a faster rate of recoupment.

I have been informed that the committee desires a briefing on 

the military forces and missions in the European area. Representatives of the military departments are with me to discuss these 

subjects as you desire.

This concludes my remarks on th is very important portion of our 

fiscal year 1980 m ilitary construction request.

I tha nk you for your consideration and attention.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Paul, are you under some time constraint?

Senator Laxalt. Somewhat.

Senator Huddleston. Would you prefer to proceed with the questions now or have the briefing from the military?

Senator Laxalt. I would prefer to have the briefing now and 

then have questions later.

Mr. Fliakas. All right, General Faith from th e Army is prepared 

to go with the first briefing.

Senator Huddleston. General, we a re glad to have you with us.

U l- 6 3 8 0 - 7 9 - 6

Department of the Army

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. JOHN C. FAITH, DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS

AND READINE SS DIRECTORATE, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAF F FOR

OPERATIONS AND PLANS

SLIDE PRESENT ATIO N

General Faith. Sir, much of w hat I say in setting the stage in

Europe will be common to the other services, particularly command relationship. If I am covering ground already familiar to you, 

I will be glad to skip over it.

US ARMY EURO PE 

DUAL US C H A IN OF COMMAND

[Slide 1]

U.S. ARMY EUROPE

On this slide, we show the relationship of U.S. Army Europe to 

the Department of the Army on the one side and to the joint 

command on the other side. The Commander of U.S. Army Europe 

is in a dual chain situation.

(79)
80

General Blanchard is th e senior Army representative with headquarters t hat support the Army forces in Europe and is responsible 

on one hand, for training, doctrine, personnel, logistics, and unilateral planning; and on the other hand he is the Army representative under USEUCOM responsible for joint planning and for joint 

training and doctrine, in that capacity he works for General Haig.

US ARMY EUROPE TIE-IN TO NATO COMMANDS

G PUU TO N A L COMMAND M a a a a i 1UP PORT

[Slide 2]

NATO COMMANDS

As far as his relationships with NATO are concerned, this shows 

the Supreme Headquarters Allied Forces Europe and those subordinate elements which General Haig commands. These are Allied 

Forces Northern Europe, Central Europe, and Southern Europe.

Now, all of the U.S. Army forces in Europe, that is those in 

Germany, are under Allied Forces Central Europe and under the 

Central Army Group. General Blanchard commands both the Central Army Group and USAREUR, so he is dual hatted.

CENTAG it is a combined command. We have the Third German 

Corps, Fifth and Seventh U.S. Corps and Second German Corps, in 

tha t order, on the frontier with the Soviet Union and East Germany.
81

COMMAND ROLES IN PEACETIME AN D WARTIME

The Fourth Tactical Air Force is shown as being the supporting 

element for the Central Army Group. General Schultze commands 

Allied Forces in Central Europe (AFCENT).

CO MMAN D RELATIONSHIPS IN EUROPE

————— 

WAR PEACE ■■ I

SACEUR

(DUAL HAT)

USCINCEUR

CINCENT

1

! 1

(DUAL HAT) COMCENTAG CINCUSAREUR

B i

FORCES FORCES

[Slide 3]

CIN CUSAREUR RESPONSIBILITY

This slide shows that General Haig is dual hatted as SACEUR 

and USCINCEUR. CINUSAREUR has the responsibility in the 

event of hostilities for supporting U.S. forces and continuing the 

logistics and personnel flow and other roles t ha t are unique from a 

service viewpoint. He also then has the combined head quarters as 

Commander of CENTAG.
82

MISSION - US ARMY EUROPE

• MAINTAIN A COMBAT-READY FORCE TO CARRY OUT ASSIGNED 

OPERATIONAL TASKS.

• • NATO MISSIONS

(1 ) DETER WARSAW PACT AGGRESSION

(2 ) DEFEAT WARSAW PACT AGGRESSION, IF REQUIRED 

• • US UNILATERAL MISSION

(1 ) INTELLIGENCE, ADMINISTRATIVE AND LOGISTIC SUPPORT OF 

US FORCES

(2 ) CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS IN US EUROPEAN COMMAND AREA 

OF RESPONSIBILITY

[Slide 4]

EUROPEAN MISSION OF THE U.S. ARMY

T he m is sio ns o f t h e A rm y as show n on th is slide are to m a in ta in 

th e com bat re adin ess o f th e fo rc e to c a rry o u t a n y assi gned N A T O 

m is si ons. It s N A T O m is sio ns do n o t p e rta in to th e A rm y it s e lf b u t 

to th e A rm y fo rc es th ere .

T h e tr a n s fe r o f o p e ra ti o n a l com m and o f th ose fo rc es to th e 

N A T O ch a in occu rs u n d e r p re a rr a n g e d c o n d itio n s w h ic h re la te to 

th e act o f aggre ssi on and p ro g re ssiv e ly ra is e th e re adin ess o f th e 

fo rc es o ver th e re .

T he u n il a te ra l m is sio ns a re show n as in te llig e n c e , a d m in is tra ­

ti o n , lo g is tics and co n tin g e n cy o p e ra tio n s, i f re q u ir e d o f U .S . forc es , 

in E u ro pean are as o f re s p o n s ib ilit y .
83

US ARMY EUROPE ORGANIZATION

[Slide 5]

ORGANIZATION OF THE U. S. ARMY EUROPE (USA RE UR )

On the next chart we show the U.S. Army Europe organization 

so far as major components are concerned. The Army in Berlin, 

21st Support Command, Army Southern European Task Force, 

Medical Command, Air Defense and a few other assigned units. 

Most of them are under those major commands.

The major combat forces are shown on the next chart.
84

MAJOR USAREUR COMBAT UNITS

XXX

XXX

[Slide 6]

MAJOR COMBAT FORCES

The V Corps consists of the the 3d Armored and 8th Mechanized 

Division, the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment on the border and 

the 4th Brigade of the 4th Mechanized Division.

The VII Corps consists of the 3d Brigade of th e 1st Mechanized 

Division, the 3d Mechanized Infantry Division, 1st Armored Division, and the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment.

Also there is one other brigade at Garlstedt in the North that 

recently moved there. It is the 2d Brigade of the 3d Armored 

Division.
FORWARD DEPLOYED FORCES

The next cha rt is a stylized picture of what they are doing over 

there. What I have referred to as the AFCENT area extends from 

the bottom part of the chart up to the northern boundary shown as 

the boundary between AFNORTH and AFCENT. In the

a r e a t h e r e a r e f o u r c o r p s o f o u r a l l i e d nations. In the CENTAG area there are two American corps and two German 

corps.

Essentially our combat units line up in the order shown, with the 

two armored cavalry regiments on the border.
L O C A TI O N O F M A J O R U S A R Ftl R U N I T S

U X E M B O U Rt

r B Rt M E R H A VI N I K

F E D E R A L

R E P U B LI C

O F

G E R M A N Y

. G E R M A N 

/ D E M O C R A TI C 

\ R E P U B LI C

a ' ’

H EI D E L B E R 

• H O U S A RI

S T U T T G A R T

K A I S E R S L A U T E R N ; 

H Q 2 1 ( t S U P T C O M O l

, H O V II C O R P S

F R A N C E

’ A U S T RI A

FS WI TZ E R L AI

V I C E N Z A • 

H O U S A S E T Af

t- B —ir - r -f c

Mil a*

[ Sli d e 8]

L O C A TI O N O F U S A R E U R U N I T S

O n t he ne xt c hart, a gai n s o me w hat st ylize d, t he l ocati o n of t he 

maj or U S A R E U R u nits, t he V C or ps i n Fra n kf urt, CI N C U S A RE U R h ea d q uart ers i n Hei del ber g, t he VII C or ps i n St utt gart.
87

MAJOR WEAPONS SYSTE MS - US ARMY EUROPE

TANKS

ARMORED PERSONNEL CA RR IERS 

8 " HO WITZ ER 

155MM HO WITZER 

RED EYE 

TOW

DRAGON 

CH APARRAL 

HERCULE S 

LANC E 

PE RS HING 

A H -IG (C OBR A)

[Slide 9]

USA REU R WE APON SYSTEMS

On the last chart are listed the major weapons systems that we 

have in Europe to do the missions I have talked about. I can in 

closed session give you numbers on any of those weapons systems, 

but those are the major elements of our combat power on the 

ground in Central Europe.

Senator H uddleston . Can you identify some of those? TOW, for 

instance?

General Faith. I can show you a picture of it. It is our wire 

guided antita nk missile which is fired from APC or armored personnel carrier or helicopter.

Senator H uddleston . H ow about Dragon and Chaparral?

General Faith. The Dragon is also a smaller version of the TOW. 

That is the TOW on three of its carriers. This is the Dragon. It is a 

shoulder-fired weapon. It has shorter range, a slightly smaller missile. It is an anti-tank weapon.

Chaparral is one of our divisional type of air defense weapons.

Senator H uddleston . T hank you, General.

e p a r t m e n t o f t h e N av y

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. R. W. CHEWNING, DIRECTOR. POLIT ICO 

MILITARY POLICY DIVISION, OFF ICE OF DEPUTY CHIEF OF 

STAFF, LOGISTICS AND ENGINEERING

PREPARED STATEMENT

M r. F l ia k a s. A d m ir a l C h e w n in g .

A d m ir a l Ch e w n in g . M r. C h a ir m a n , I h a v e p ro v id ed a s ta te m e n t 

fo r th e re c o rd . I p ro p o se to h ig h li g h t so m e o f th e m a jo r p o in ts in 

t h a t w it h y o u r p erm is sio n .

S e n a to r H u d d l e st o n. F in e.

[T he s ta te m e n t fo llo w s:]

(89)
90

rep ared State me nt of Rear Ad m . Rob er t W, Che wn in g USN

DI RE CT OR , PO L IT IC O M IL IT ARY PO LI CY AND CURRENT PLA NS D IV IS IO N ,

O FF IC E OF THE DEPUTY CH IE F OF NAVAL OPE RAT ION S

MR . CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COM MIT TEE :

I AM REAR ADM IRAL ROBE RT W. CHEW NING, DIR EC TO R OF THE PO LI TIC O 

MILIT AR Y PO LI CY AND CURRE NT PLAN S D IV IS IO N IN THE O FFI CE OF THE DEPUTY 

CH IE F OF NAVAL OP ER AT ION S FOR PL AN S, PO LIC Y AND OPE RA TI ON S. IT I S A 

D IS TIN CT P R IV IL EG E TO REPO RT ON UN ITE D ST AT ES NAVY BA SI NG IN THE EUROPEAN 

TH EATER, THE NA VY ’ S PA RTIC IP ATIO N IN NATO INFRA STRU CTUR E AND THE FY 1980

M IL IT AR Y CON STRUCTION PROJ EC TS WHICH SUPP ORT TH ESE BA SE S AND THE NATO

INFRAS TRU CTU RE PROGRAM .

UN ITE D STA TES IN TE RE ST

BEC AUS E OF OUR V IT A L IN TE RE ST S IN WESTERN EU RO PE , THE NORTH AT LA NT IC

AL LI AN CE I S THE CORNE RSTON E OF OUR DE FENSE P O L IC Y . THE PRIM ARY THREAT TO

EUROPEAN SE CU RI TY I S , OF CO UR SE , THE LARGE AND IMP RO VIN G WARSAW PACT

FOR CES FA CING NAT O’ S CENT RAL REGIO N AND BOTH FL AN KS . THE VU NE RA BILITY OF

WESTERN EU RO PE’ S O IL SU PPL Y, SOME 60 PERC ENT OF WHICH COMES BY SEA FROM

THE PE RS IA N GU LF , COULD AL SO PROVE TO BE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE IN THE

PR ESE RV AT ION OF EUROPEAN FR EE S O C IE T IE S .

NAVY CO NT RIB UT ION TO EUROPEAN DEF ENS E

THE U . S . NAVY CONT RIB UT ES TO EUROPEAN DEFEN SE IN A VA RIET Y OF WA YS.

• IN PE AC ET IM E, WE MAINT AIN THE SI XT H FL EE T IN THE MEDITE RRANE AN 

AS A DETERRENT AG AI NS T SO VI ET AC TION S AND AS A SO LID IF YIN G

FOR CE FOR OUR FR IEND S AND A L L IE S IN THE RE GI ON. THE SI XT H

FL EE T HAS BEEN CAL LED THE CEMENT THAT BIND S THE MEDITERRANE AN 

TOGETH ER , AND IN A VERY REAL SE N SE , THE FL EE T HAS REDUCED THE 

LIKE LIHO OD OF LO CAL DIS PU TE S ERU PTING IN TO GENERAL CO N FL IC T.
91

\ ' 

• AS PAR T OF T HE N ATO ALLIANCE, THE U.S. NAVY W OUL D OPERATE WITH

ALLIED NAVA L FORCES IN THE DEFENSE OF EUROPE. BECAUSE OF THE

NEED TO OPERATE AS A TEAM, THE NAVIES OF NATO HAVE DEVELOPED A

VERY HI GH LEV EL OF STANDARDIZATI ON AND INTEROPERABILITY. TO

INSURE THIS, MAJ OR E XERCI SES THRO UGHOUT THE NATO AREA OCCUR

REGULARLY TO TEST OUR ABILITY TO W ORK TOG ETHE R IN PER FORM ING

ESSE NTIAL SEA CONTROL TASKS. IN THE E VENT OF H OSTILITIES, THE 

ATLA NTIC M ARI TIM E CAMPAI GN WOUL D BE A PARTN ERSHIP, WIT H THE

U.S. NAVY P ROVIDING SEA-B ASED AIR AN D A MPHIBIOUS POWER P ROJ ECTION

CAPA BILI TIES , HIGH TECHNOLOGY A SW A ND OTHER "BLUE WATE R" TASKS.

ALLI ES WOU LD PROVIDE SOME OPEN OCEAN S UPPOR T A ND ALSO C ONCENTRATE

ON REGIONAL TASKS.

• IN CO NTINGEN CY SITUA TION S INVOL VING THE M IDDL E EAST AND PER SIAN

GULF AR EAS, THE NAVY IS READY WIT H FORCES ON THE SCENE TO

PRO TECT U.S. INTERE STS AND ASS IST ALLIES. BECAUSE NAVAL FORCES

DO N OT DEPEND GREATLY ON SUPPORT FROM THIRD COUNTRIES, WE CAN

INFL UENCE EVENT S IN A C ONST RUCTIVE WA Y W ITH OUT BECOMING MIRED

DOW N ASHORE.

• IN GE NERAL WAR, THE NAVY IS CHARGE D WI TH ENSURING THE SAFE

DEL IVERY OF REIN FORC EMENT AND RESUPPL Y SHIPPING TO EUROPE.

WE WOULD ALS O PROVIDE DIRECT SUPPORT TO THE FLANKS, THE DEFENSE

OF WHIC H IS LA RGEL Y A NAVAL FUNCTION. OUR ABILITY TO P ERFORM

THO SE T ASKS WIL L DEPEN D ON THE SUCCESS OF OUR EARLY OFFENSIVE

ACTIONS AGA INST THE SOVIET NAVY, AFTE R WH ICH WE COULD AP PLY SEA

POWE R AS REQ UIRED TO PR OVID E MAXI MUM BENEFIT TO TH E LAND AND

AIR CA MPAIGNS IN EUROPE.

UNI TED STATES NAVA L POSTURE IN THE EUROP EAN AREA

DURING NORM AL OPERAT IONS, WE MAI NTAIN THE FOLLOWING FORCES FORWARD

DEPLOYED IN THE EUROPE AN A REA
92

CA RR IERS 2

SUR FAC E COMBATANTS 17

ATTA CK SUBM ARIN ES 5

AM PH IBI OU S SH IP S 6

MO BIL E L O G IS T IC S SUP POR T FOR CE 11

THESE FI GU RE S INCLUD E THE COMMAND SH IP AND TWO SURFAC E COMBATANTS 

AS SIG NE D TO THE MID DLE EA ST FOR CE AND ONE SUR FACE COMBATANT AS SIGN ED FU LL 

TIM E TO THE NATO STA ND ING NAVAL FOR CE ATLA NTI C.

UN ITE D STA TES MARINE COR PS

FOR CES AFLOAT - 1 MAR INE AM PH IBI OU S UN IT - 1 ,9 4 3 PERS ONNE L

AIR CR AF T (F IX ED WING AND HE LICO PT ER S)

UN ITE D ST AT ES MAR INE COR PS - 22

UNITED ST AT ES NAVY - 222

SI N CE THE NAVY AND MAR INE COR PS I S A MO BIL E FO RC E, A MINIMUM OF BA SES 

ARE REQ UIR ED IN THE EUROPEAN AR EA , BUT THE SE BA SE S ARE ES SE NT IA L FOR THE 

EF FE CT IV E PERFORMANCE OF THE NA VY ’ S M IS SI O N S IN EURO PE.

THE M IS SI O N S SUPPORTED FROM OUR ICE LA ND BA SE WILL BE D IS CU SSE D , THEN

A DIS CU SS IO N OF M IS SI O N S IN THE MEDITERRAN EAN SUPPORTE D FROM BAS ES AT

RO TA , SP AI N AND SI GO N ELL A, S I C I L Y .

ICE LA ND

SU RV EILL AN CE OF THE SE A AND A IR EXP AN SE IN THE GR EE NL AN D- ICE LA ND -

UN ITE D KINGDOM GAP I S THE PRIM ARY M IS SI O N OF U . S . NAVAL AND A IR FOR CE UN IT S

BASE D IN IC EL AN D. FROM OUR BAS E AT KE FL AV IK CONTINU OUS PEA CET IME OPERATI ON S BY NAVY AN TI -SU BM AR IN E WARFARE (ASW) PATR OL AIRC RA FT MA INT AIN CL OS E

WATCH ON PO TE NT IALL Y HOST IL E SUBMAR INES TR AN SI TI NG TH IS GA P. LAN D-B ASE D

ASW OPE RAT ION S CEN TER S AND COMM UNICATIONS ST AT IO NS AT KEF LV IK OPERATE IN

CONJU NCTIO N WITH THE SE ASW PATRO L A IR CR AFT . MODERN WEAPONS SYS TEM S SUCH AS
93

THE AIRBORNE WARN ING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS) AIRC RAFT OP ERAT ING FROM THE 

KEFLAVIK BASE PROVIDE COMMAND A ND CONTROL IN THE AI R SPACE OF THIS STRAT EGIC 

SECTOR OF TH E EUROPEAN THEATRE. IN TIME OF WAR, DOMI NANC E OVER SOVIET 

SUBMA RINE FORCES IN THE N ORTH ATLANT IC WOUL D BE ESSEN TIAL IF WE ARE TO 

SUSTAIN OUR COMB AT CAPA BILI TY IN EUROPE THROU GH RESUPPLY BY SEA. OUR BASE 

IN ICELAND WOUL D BE US EFUL AS A MEANS OF ESTABLI SHIN G SUCH DOMINANCE.

THE M ILITARY CONSTRU CTIO N REQUEST THIS YEAR INCLUDES THE $16.2

MIL LION GEO THERMAL HEATING INIT IATIVE AT KE FLAVIK WHICH BOTH SOLI DIFIES

THE B ILAT ERAL AGREE MEN T UNDE R WHICH WE USE T HE BASE (MOU OF 1974 COMMITS 

US TO JOIN WITH ICELAND IN DEV ELOP ING GEOTHERMAL), AND AFFORDS US AN 

OPPORTUN ITY TO SAVE 7.1 MILLION GA LLONS OF HEATING OI L PE R YEAR WH ILE

ATTA ININ G A PA Y-BACK ON OU R CONSTRUC TION INVES TMEN T IN LESS THAN TEN YEARS.

A SECOND P ROJE CT IN ICELAND WILL C ONSTRUC T A INCINERATOR, A JOINT ENDEAVOR

WITH THE LOCA L COMMUNITIES.

MEDI TERR ANEAN AREA

THE SIXTH FLEET'S MIS SION IS TO MAIN TAIN A STRONG MO BILE CAPA BILITY

FOR POWE R P ROJ ECTION AN D SEA CONTROL AND T O RAPIDL Y REACT TO CRISES

THROUGHOUT TH E MEDI TER RANEAN SEA AND ITS LITTORAL.

THE NAVY OP ERAT ES TWO SHORE BASES IN THIS REGION, ONE AT SIGONELLA, 

SICILY; AND THE OT HER OU TSIDE OF THE M EDITERR ANEA N, AT ROTA, SPAIN. THESE 

BASES FURNISH THE SIXTH FLEE T S UPPO RT IN THE FORM OF LAND- BASED ASW AIRCRAFT, CREW TRANSFERS, RESUPPLY, AVIA TION M AINTENANCE SERVICES AND C OMMUN ICATIONS. BOTH BASES INCLUDE M ODERN AIRFIEL DS FROM WHI CH LAND -BAS ED ASW

PATROL AND F LEET LOG ISTICS SUPPORT AIRC RAFT OPERATE IN CONJU NCTI ON WITH

SIXTH FLEE T UNITS.

IN RE CENT YEARS, THE C ENTRA L ME DITERRANEAN BASE AT SIGON ELLA HAS

EXPAN DED COMM ENSU RATE WITH NE W MISSION ASSIGNMENTS. EXTE NSIV E NA TO

INFRASTRUCTUR E F UNDING IS CONT INUI NG TO BE APPLIED FOR OPERATIONA L FACIL ­

ITIES AT BOTH THE AIRFIELD AND THE NEARBY AUG USTA BAY PORT FACILITY.

HOWEVER, U.S. FUNDING TH ROU GH M ILITARY C ONST RUCTION IS NE EDED TO COMPLE41- 638 0 - 7 9 - 7
94

MENT THE NATO INITIA TIVES BY PR OVIDING PE RSONNEL SUPPORT, ADMI NISTRATION

AND OTHER NATIONAL FACILITI ES WHI CH NATO DOES NOT PROGRAM.

THIS YE AR ’S MILITARY CONSTRU CTIO N REQUEST IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE,

WAREHOUS ING AND PASSENGER TE RMINAL FACILIT IES URGENTLY NEEDED BY U.S.

STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES, BUT INELIGIB LE UNDER N ATO INFRASTRUCTUR E 

CRITERIA, WITH ITS FOCUS ON W ART IME OPERATION AL FACIL ITIE S ONLY.

AT THE ROTA, SPAIN BASE WE ARE REQUESTING FUNDING FOR A POWER CONVE RTER 

THAT WILL ENABLE US T O BUY ELECTRICAL POWER FROM LO CAL SPANISH UTILITIES. 

AGAIN, IT IS FAR MORE ECONOMI CAL EVEN IN THE SHORT RUN TO BUY POWER THAN 

TO CONT INUE TO PRODUCE OUR OWN IN A N AVY POWE R PLANT, A 26-YEAR OLD

FACILITY WITH WORN OUT GEN ERATING EQUIPMENT.

WHIL E STRATEGIC SUBMARI NE UNIT S WI LL WITH DRAW THIS SUMMER, I WANT TO

AFF IRM A CONTINUING NE ED FOR U.S. MILITARY OPERA TION S FROM THE ROTA BASE

TO SUPPOR T LA ND-B ASED ASW, AIRCRAFT, COMMUNICATION, POL STORAGE, FLEET

REPLENI SHME NT AND OTHER E SSENTIAL MISSIONS.

NAVY PART ICIPATION IN NATO INFR ASTR UCTU RE

OVER T HE THIRTY AN NUA L SLICES APPROVED TO DATE, THE NATO COMMON

INFRASTRUCTUR E PR OGRAM HAS FUNDED E XTENS IVE OPERATIONA L FACILITIES OF

DIRECT BENEFI T TO THE U.S. NAVY. THESE BASES ARE LOCA TED THROUGHOUT THE

ATLANTI C AREA AND IN THE MEDITERRANEAN.

THE NATO BASES WE USE ARE FL EET ORDNANC E AN D POL REP LENISHMENT DEPOTS

THROUGH OUT THE ATLANTIC (ICELAND, AZORES, UK, NORWAY, PORTUGAL) AND IN THE 

MEDITERRANEAN (ITALY, SICILY, SARDINIA, TURKEY, CRETE).

WE ARE AL SO FULL AN D P ART -TIME USERS OF NATO MA RITIME PATROL

AIRFIELD S (FULL TIME: KEFLAVIK, BERMUDA, AZORES, SIGONELLA; PART TIME: 

SOUDA BAY CRETE, BODO AND A NDOYA NORWAY, MONTIJO, PORTUGAL, MACHRIHA NI SH , 

SCO TLAND).
95

THE AGGREGATE V ALUE OF NATO FUND ED PROJE CTS DIRECTLY BENE FITING THE 

U.S. NAVY IN THE MEDITE RRAN EAN AREA OV ER THE PAST TEN Y EARS TOTALS $162 

MILLION. THESE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN CENTERED AT S IGONELL A AND OTHER 

CENTRAL ME DITERRANEAN POL AND AMMU NITION S TORAG E DEPOTS.

NAT O PROGR AMS HAVE FUNDED EXTENSI VE CONSTRUCT ION IN ICELAND AND THE 

EASTERN ATLANTI C OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS. THIS INCLUDES FLEET POL AND

AMMUNITION REPL ENIS HMENT FACI LITI ES DIRECTLY BENE FITING THE U.S. NAVY IN

PORTUGAL, UK AND NORWAY, VALUED AT $79 MILLION.

IN ICELAND, A MAJOR POL STORAGE FACILIT Y TO SERVE U.S. NAVY WA RTIME 

NEEDS IN THE N ORT H AT LANTIC WAS COMP LETED USIN G N ATO FUNDS, IN 1969.

SINCE THEN, SOME $15 MILLI ON O F NATO F UNDI NG HAS BEEN APPRO VED FOR

VARIO US NAVY FACIL ITIE S IN ICELAND.

CONCLUSION

THE NA VY ’S BASE S IN THE EUROPEA N A REA ARE IMPORTANT TO THE COMBAT 

READI NESS O F N AVA L AND MARINE FORCES OF THE SIXTH FLEET.

THE NAVY'S FY 1980 MILITARY C ONS TRU CTION REQUEST FOR THE EUROPEAN 

ARE A IS $35.4 MIL LION AND INCLUDES EIGHT PROJECT S AT NAVAL SHORE 

INST ALLAT IONS IN ICELAND, THE UNITED KINGDOM, SPAIN AND ITALY. APP ROX IMATELY HA LF ($16.2 M ILL ION OR 46 PERCENT) OF OUR REQUEST CENTERS ON A 

SINGLE P ROJECT FOR A GEO THERMAL H EAT ING SYST EM AT KEFLAVIK, ICELAND.

THE BALANC E OF THE REQUEST C OVERS INDIV IDUA L OPERATIONAL, UTILITI ES AND 

LOGISTIC S SUPPORT PROJECTS AT THE OTHER LOCA TION S IN EUROPE.

WITHIN TH E M ILI TARY C ONST RUCTION BUDGET, THE NAVY CONTINU ALLY STRIVES

TO ACHIEVE A PROPER B ALAN CE BETWEEN FACIL ITIE S INVESTM ENTS IN THE EUROPEAN

AND PACIFIC THEA TERS OF OPER ATIONS AND THE LOGI STIC S SUPPORT BASES IN THE

UNITED STATES.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

REAR ADMIRAL ROBERT W. CHEWNING, UNITED STATES NAVY

Robert Wills Chewning was born in Charlottesville, Virginia, 

on December 23, 1929, son of Dr. Carroll Wills Chewning and Mrs. 

(Vivienne Akers) Chewning. He graduated from Randolph Macon 

Academy, Front Royal, Virgina and attended the University of 

Virginia at Charlottesville, for one year, prior to entering 

the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, on appointment 

from his native state in 1949. Graduated and commissioned 

Ensign on June 5, 1"953, he subsequently advanced in rank to 

that of Rear Admiral, to date from July 1, 1975.

Following graduation from the Navy Academy in 1953, he remained there as a Plebe Drill Instructor and Boxing Coach until 

September of that year, then joined the USS RADFORD (DDE-446) 

as First Lieutenant. Detached from that antisubmarine destroyer 

in May 1955, he next had submarine training at the Submarine 

School, New London, Connecticut. Completing instruction there 

in December 1955, he reported the next month on board the USS 

AMBERJACK (SS-522). In January 1958 he returned to the Submarine 

School to attend the Nuclear Power School. From July 1958 to 

February 1959 he had nuclear power training at the prototype, 

Nuclear Power Training Unit, Idaho Falls, Idaho, after which he 

had special nuclear power training at the Bettis Plant, Atomic 

Power Laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

In March 1959 he joined the pre-commissioning Blue Crew of 

the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (SSBN-598) and is entitled to the 

ribbon for and a facsimile of the Navy Unit Commendation awarded 

that fleet ballistic missile submarine. In September 1961 he 

transferred to the USS SKIPJACK (SSN-585) to serve as Engineer 

Officer and Executive Officer. He attended the Prospective 

Commanding Officers School at the Submarine Base, New London, 

Connecticut, during March and April 1964, then had fleet ballistic missile training at the Guided Missile School, Dam Neck, 

Virginia. In June 1964 he reported as Executive Officer of the 

Blue Crew of the USS ALEXAND ER HAMILTON (SSBN-617). During June 

and July 1965 he again attended the Prospective Commanding 

Officers School, then had further training in the Bureau of Ships 

Navy Department, Washington, D.C.

He assumed command of the USS HADDO (SSN-604) in November 

1965, and for outstan ding services in that assignment was awarded 

the Legion of Merit and the Navy Commendation Medal. The 

citations follow in part:

Legion Of Merit: "For exceptionally meritorious conduct.... 

in 1966...Displayed exceptional professional competence, sound 

judgment and resourcefulness, Commander Chewning planned and 

successfully executed an extremely complex and important independent submarine operation..."

. Navy Commendation Medal: "For meritorious achievement 

during a period in 1967. Through his outstanding leadership, 

professional skill and sound judgment, Commander Chewning was 

instrumental in achieving results of significant value to 

national security... "

He is also entitled to the ribbons for the Navy Unit 

Commendation and Meritorious Unit Commendation awarded the USS 

HADDO.
In September 1967 he assumed command of the Nuclear Power 

Training Unit, Idaho Falls, where he served until October 1970. 

He was Commander Submarine Division FIFTY-ONE from November 

1970 to June 1971, and the next month assumed command of 

Submarine Squadron SEVEN. In May 1972 he became Commander 

Submarine Flotilla FIVE as an additional duty until this command 

was disestablished in May 1973. At the same time he assumed 

command of Submarine Squadron ONE and when squadrons SEVEN and 

ONE were combined in July 1973, he continued command of the 

newl y formed squadron as Commander, Submarine Squadron ONE 

until July 1974. In September 1974 he reported for duty as 

Chief Navy Section, Joint U.S. Military Missi on for Aid to 

Turkey where he served until September 1976. He the n became 

Special Assistant to Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Plans, 

Policy and Operations), from October 1976 to August 1977. He 

presently serves as Director, Politico-Military Policy an d C u rr e n t 

P la n s D iv is io n , O ffic e o f th e Dep ut y C h ie f o f N av al O p e ra ti o n s f o r P la n s , 

P o lic y an d O p e ra ti o n s .

In addition to the Legion of Merit, the Navy Commendation 

Medal, the Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon with Bronze Star and 

the Meritorious Unit Commendation Ribbon, Rear Admiral Chewning 

has the Navy Expeditionary Medal; China Service Medal; National 

Defense Service Medal with Bronze Star; Korean Service Medal; 

Vietnam Service Medal; and the United Nations Service Medal.

His home town address is Box 566, Orange, Virginia. He 

is married to the former Virginia Louise Harvey of Kilmarnock, 

Virginia and they have three children, Carol Winter, V irginia 

Sue and Rush Kills Chewning.

NAVY BASING IN EUROPEAN THEATER

Admiral Chewning . Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Rear Adm. Robert W. Chewning, Director of th e Politico 

Military Policy and Current Plans Division in the Office of the 

Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Plans, Policy and Operations.

It is a distinct privilege to repo rt on U.S. Navy basing in the 

European Theater, the Navy’s participation in NATO infrastructure and the fiscal year 1980 military construction projects which 

support these bases and the NATO infr astructure program.

U.S. INTEREST

Because of our vital interests in Western Europe, the North 

Atlantic Alliance is the cornerstone of our defense policy. The 

primary thr eat to European security is, of course, the large and 

improving Warsaw Pact Forces facing NATO’s central region on 

both flanks. The vulnerability of Western Europe’s oil supply, some 

60 percent of which comes by sea from the Persian Gulf, could also 

prove to be of grea t importance in the preservation of European 

free societies.

NA VY CONTRIBUTION TO EUROPEAN DEFENSE

The U.S. Navy contributes to European defense in a variety of 

ways.

In peacetime, we maintain the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean as 

a deterre nt against Soviet actions and as a solidifying force for our 

friends and allies in the region. The 6th Fleet has been called the 

cement that binds the Mediterranean together, and in a very real
98

sense, the fleet has reduced the likelihood of local disputes erupting into general conflict.

As part of the NATO alliance, the U.S. Navy would operate with 

allied naval forces in the defense of Europe. Because of the need to 

operate as a team, the navies of NATO have developed a very high 

level of standardization and interoperability. We do this through 

operating together common doctrine, common communications procedures, et cetera, common fuel and a number of other things.

To insure this, major exercises throughout the NATO area occur 

regularly to test our ability to work together in performing essential sea control tasks. In the event of hostilities, the Atlantic maritime campaign would be a partnership, with the U.S. Navy providing sea-based air and amphibious power projection capabilities, 

high technology ASW and o ther “blue w ater” tasks.

We envision the allies would provide some open ocean support 

and also concentrate on regional tasks such as mining or mine 

countermeasures.

In contingency situations involving the Middle East and Persian 

Gulf areas, the Navy is ready with forces on the scene to protect 

U.S. interests and assist allies. Because naval forces do not depend 

greatly on support from third countries, we can influence events in 

a constructive way without becoming mired down ashore.

In general war, the Navy is charged with insuring the safe 

delivery of reinforcement and resupply shipping to Europe. We 

would also provide direct support to the flanks, the defense of 

which is largely a naval function. Our ability to perform those 

tasks will depend on the success of our early offensive actions 

against the Soviet Navy, after which we could apply sea power as 

required to provide maximum benefit to the land and air campaigns in Europe.

U. S. NA VA L POSTURE IN THE EUROPEA N AREA

During normal operations, we maintain the following forces forward deployed in the European area: Carriers —2; surface combatants—17; atta ck submarines—5; amphibious ships—6; and mobile 

logistics support force—11.

These Figures include the command ship and two surface combatants assigned to the Middle East force and one surface comb atant 

assigned full time to th e NATO Standing Force Atlantic.

U.S. MA RINE CORPS

Forces afloat—one marine amphibious unit—1,943 personnel.

Aircraft (fixed wing and helicopters): U.S. Marine Corps—22 and 

U.S. Navy—222.

Since th e Navy and Marine Corps is a mobile force, a minimum 

of bases are required in the European area, but these bases are 

essential for the effective performance of the Navy’s missions in 

Europe.

The missions supported from our Iceland base will be discussed, 

then a discussion of missions in the Mediterranean supported from 

bases at Rota, Spain and Sigonella, Sicily.
99

ICELAND

Surveillance of the sea and air expanse in the Greenland-IcelandUnited Kingdom gap, commonly called the Giuk gap, is the primary mission of U.S. naval and Air Force units based in Iceland. 

From our base at Keflavik continuous peacetime operations by 

Navy anti-submarine warfare (ASW) patrol airc raft maintain close 

watch on potentially hostile submarines tran siting this gap.

Land-based ASW operations centers and communications stations at Keflavik operate in conjunction with these ASW patrol 

aircraft. Modern weapons systems such as the airborne warning 

and control system (AWACS) aircraft operating from the Keflavik 

base provide command and control in the air space of this strategic 

sector of the European thea ter.

In time of war, dominance over Soviet submarine forces in the 

North Atlantic would be essential if we are to sustain our combat 

capability in Europe through resupply by sea. Our base in Iceland 

would be useful as a means of establishing such dominance.

The military construction request this year includes the $16.2 

million geothermal heating initiative at Keflavik which both solidifies the bilateral agreement under which we use the base [MOU of 

1974 commits us to join with Iceland in developing geothermal], 

and affords us an opportunity to save 7.1 million gallons of heating 

oil per year while atta inin g a payback on our construction investment in less tha n 10 years. A second project in Iceland will constru ct an incinerator, a jo int endeavor with the local communities.

ME DITERRANEAN AREA

The 6th Fleet’s mission is to maintain a strong mobile capability 

for power projection and sea control and to rapidly react to crises 

throu ghou t the Mediterranean sea and its littoral.

The Navy operates two shore bases in this region, one at Sigonella, Sicily; and the other outside of the Mediterranean, at Rota, 

Spain. These bases furnish the 6th Fleet support in the form of 

land-based ASW aircra ft, crew transfers, resupply, aviation maintenance services and communications. Both bases include modern 

airfields from which land-based ASW patrol and fleet logistics support aircraft operate in conjunction with 6th Fleet units.

In recent years, the central Mediterranean base at Sigonella has 

expanded commensurate with new mission assignments. That is 

basically a reassignment of logistics function. Extensive NATO 

infrastructure funding is continuing to be applied for operational 

facilities at both the airfield and the nearby Augusta Bay port 

facility. However, U.S. funding throu gh military construction is 

needed to complement the NATO initiatives by providing personnel 

support, administration and other national facilities which NATO 

does not program.

This yea r’s military construction request is for administrative, 

warehousing and passenger terminal facilities urgently needed by 

U.S. standards and procedures, but ineligible unde r NATO infrastructure criteria, with its focus on wartime operational facilities 

only.

At the Rota, Spain, base we are requesting funding for a power 

converter tha t will enable us to buy electrical power from local
100

Spanish utilities. Again, it is far more economical even in the short 

run to buy power than to continue to produce our own in a Navy 

powerplant, a 26-year-old facility with worn-out generating equipment.

While strategic submarine units will withdraw this summer, I 

want to affirm a continuing need for U.S. military operations from 

the Rota base to support land-based ASW, aircraft, communication, 

POL storage, fleet replenishm ent and other essential missions.

NAVY PART ICIPA TION IN NATO INFRASTR UCTURE

Over the 30 annu al slices approved to date, the NATO common 

infrastructure program has funded extensive operational facilities 

of direct benefit to the U.S. Navy. These bases are located th rough ­

out the Atlantic area and in the Mediterranean.

The NATO bases we use are fleet ordnance and POL replenishment depots throughout the Atlantic (Iceland, Azores, United Kingdom, Norway, Portugal) and in the Mediterranean (Italy, Sicily, 

Sardinia, Turkey, Crete).

We a re also full- and part-tim e users of NATO maritime patrol 

airfields (full time: Keflavik, Bermuda, Azores, Sigonella; part 

time: Souda Bay, Crete, Bodo and Andoya, Norway, Montije, P ortugal, Machrihanish, Scotland).

The aggregate value of NATO funded projects directly benefiting 

the U.S. Navy in the Mediterranean area over the past 10 years 

totals $162 million. These facilities have been centered at Sigonella 

and other central Mediterranean POL and ammunition storage 

depots.

NATO programs have funded extensive construction in Iceland 

and the eastern Atlantic over the past 10 years. This includes fleet 

POL and ammunition replenishment facilities directly benefiting 

the U.S. Navy in Portugal, United Kingdom, and Norway, valued 

at $79 million.

In Iceland, a major POL storage facility to serve U.S. Navy 

wartime needs in the North Atlantic was completed using NATO 

funds, in 1969. Since then, some $15 million of NATO funding has 

been approved for various Navy facilities in Iceland.

CONCLUSION

The Navy’s bases in the European area are important to the 

combat readiness of naval and marine forces of the 6th Fleet.

The Navy’s fiscal year 1980 military construction request for the 

European area is $35.4 million and includes eight projects at naval 

shore installations in Iceland, the United Kingdom, Spain, and 

Italy. Approximately half ($16.2 million or 46 percent) of our request centers on a single project for a geothermal heating system 

at Keflavik, Iceland. The balance of the request covers individual 

operational, utilities and logistics support projects at the other 

locations in Europe.

Within the military construction budget, the Navy continually 

strives to achieve a proper balance between facilities investments 

in th e European and Pacific th eaters of operations and the logistics 

support bases in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, tha t completes my statement.
101

Senator Huddleston. Admiral, of the total NATO naval effort, 

what percentage is supplied by the United States?

Admiral Chewning . The U.S. Navy provides the majority of the 

combat capability Mr. Chairman. In total numbers of ships it does 

not look like such an imbalance. However if you look at the combat 

capability in existing ships the U.S. Navy contributes about 80 

percent.

Senator Huddleston. What are these noncombat vessels?

Admiral Chewning . Noncombat vessels are things like supply 

vessels, but total combat capability is very hard to define. Tha t is 

the total capability to compete in modern warfare.

Senator Huddleston. Are the bases at Sigonella and Rota in any 

kind of jeopardy from negotiations?

Admiral Chewning . Mr. Chairm an, I think as you probably 

know, the Rota base comes up for renegotiation in 1981. We are on 

a 5-year term. As usual, I would anticipate there will be some 

readjustments but I don’t know anything at this point in time that 

is in jeopardy.

Mr. Fliakas. The most sensitive issue was taken care of in the 

last treaty with the recall of the fleet ballistic missiles.

Admiral Chewning . Mr. Chairman, we have no indication of any 

serious problems in our relations with Italy.

Senator Huddleston. It would be very hard to replace those 

bases?

Admiral Chewning . They a re very strategically located. We need 

some place to come back to get the bullets and POL.

Senator Huddleston. Do you have any questions of the admiral?

Senator Laxalt. I don’t think so, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fliakas. I would like to conclude with Major Liebner of the 

Department of the Air Force.

epartment of the Air Force

STATEMENT OF MAJOR LIEBNER, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

ACCOMPANIED BY:

MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM D. GILBERT. DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING AND 

SERVICES, CHIEF OF STAFF, LOGISTICS AND ENGINEERING

FORCE STRUCTURE CHANGES

Major Liebner. In fiscal year 1979 and 1980 I will show the force 

structure changes that are taking place in USAF.

US AF E

END F Y 79

END FY 80

ALCONBURY.

18 RF-4C

I 18 F-S

FAIRFORD

5 KC-13S ROTE

IS KC-135 GREENHAM

CO MMON

SPADE ADAM .1

(EW) -

UNITED KINGDOM

• Main Op aia lln* Rata

• tiandby Dlipa nal Baia

I XX Air la Air Rpnea

X Air la Orawnd Rang*

A M u n lt la n i li a ra g a

CULTHORPE

IAKINHEATH

84 F-I11F

.WETHERSFIELD

(N TW A TIR t

F " » A-tO 7?

OODtR IDOE

'S’TW A-IO

S HC -I3O

C3HH-S3

ILD EN HA Ll 1

1 EC-135

I t KC -135 ROTE

4 RC -135 ROTE

f H ’ C-ftO RO TI'

[Slide 1]

INTRODUCTION OF AIRCRAFT

Major Liebner. The changes that I am sure you are aware of are 

the introduction of the A-10 to Bent waters/Woodbridge. The KC135 at Fairford should be introduced this year also, sir.

Senator Huddleston, That is a new operation there, the KC135?

Major Liebner. Yes, sir, at Fairford.

(103)
104

Senator H uddleston. Does that mean there are five of them to 

be located there?

Major Liebner. Yes, sir. There are none at this time. There will 

be a total of 15 by next year.

At Bentwaters we increase from 54 A-lO’s to 72 and at Woodbridge, we increase from 18 to 36 A-lO’s. The remaining force 

remains th e same.

CENTRAL REGION

In the central region we introduced the F-15 at Camp New 

Amsterdam. The A-lO’s shown in the central region come out of 

Bentwaters/Woodbridge. The forward operating bases are Ahlhorn, 

Norvenich, and Leipheim.

As a result of the F-15’s introduction into the central region, we 

distribute some F-4 aircraft within the region to Ramstein. We 

built Ramstein up from 24 to 48 F- 4’s.

In addition, Spandahlem was increased by an additional squadron of F-40’s during this period.

In 1980 the only change is the introduction of these A-lO’s 

moving forward from Bentwaters/Woodbridge to the Forward Operating Locations (FOL’s).
105

SOUTHERN REGION FORCE

In the FRG the force in the southern region remains unchanged. 

We have 54 “C” models at Torrejon. The conversion is taking place 

this year. The “D’s” come from Bentwaters/Woodbridge. We do 

have rotational commitments at Aviano, Italy and Incirlik, Turkey. 

At the present time we are not pulling any at Aviano. At Incirlik 

we have had up to 24 F-4 ’s on rotation. At the present time we 

have 12 F -4’s on rotation coming from bases in FRG.

Beginning this summer, Torrejon, as in the past, will again have 

the rotational commitment at Incirlik.

At Decimomannu, Italy the ACMI facility will have between 17 

and 19 aircraft. They will be eith er F-4’s or F-15’s and five to 

seven F-5’s.

There is no change in the southern region for fiscal year 1980.

That concludes my presentation.

Senator H uddleston. You mentioned in your statem ent the introduction of new systems bringing on new requirements.

NEW SYSTEMS AND RELATED CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Fliakas. In addition to those we have already mentioned 

other such as the Patriot Air Defense System, and the F-15 as we 

have already heard. These a re the ones tha t come to mind.

Senator H uddleston . They will require additional construction?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir. I will ask General Gilbert to go into the 

details of any specific construction required to support the F-15’s, 

for example.

General Gilbert. The F-15, of course, has a different engine of 

any aircraft we have ever had in the inventory. It is an accordion
106

type engine and opens in modules. Therefore, most of the engine 

repair facilities we have today just will not accommodate the F-15 

engine.

In addition, it has a highly sophisticated avionics system tha t 

requires extensive test equipm ent and adequate power. Our avionic 

facilities today cannot accommodate the test equipment and peculiar engine test facility requirements associated with the F-15.

The A-10, of course, has its peculiarities also. The configuration 

of the engines on the airc raft require different engine test facilities 

than do our current aircraft. It also has some other facility peculiar requirements associated with it. There are some weapon systems tha t we will continue to introduce into Europe on which 

announcements have not been made, but will likewise require some 

peculiar facility requirements along with them.

Senator H uddleston . S enator Laxalt.

NATO FU ND ING PROCESS

Senator Laxalt. Mr. Secretary, as you know, I am new on this 

subcommittee. Can you describe to me the process by which our 

share of the NATO funding is determined?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir. It is my unde rstanding that this is a 

negotiated share depending upon the ability to assume the burden 

based on the gross national product and other factors. The last 

negotiated rate was at 27 percent, 27.2, I believe, with the United 

States and the FRG being the largest contributors to the infrastructure program. There a re some nations who’s contributions are 

very low and one nation that does not contribute at all. This is 

Iceland which has no forces. Others such as Greece and Turkey 

have a very small percentage.

Senator Laxalt. Do these people sit down once a year? What is 

the process?

Mr. Fliakas. I can ask Mr. Loveland to describe the process.

Senator Laxalt. Not in any grea t detail. I want to get a feeling 

how this comes to us.
U.S. Mission to NATO

STATEMENT OF T. J. LOVELAND, DIRECTOR, INFRASTRUCTURE AND 

LOGISTICS DIVISION, U.S. MISSION TO NATO

ACCOMPANIED BY:

LT. GEN. RICHARD H. GROVES, DEPUTY ADVISER TO SECRETARY 

OF DEF ENSE ON NATO AFFAIRS

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator Laxalt. Mr. Loveland of the U.S. Mission to NATO is 

next. Your prepared statement will be inserted into the record 

after which you may summarize your statem ent.

[The stateme nt follows:]

(107)
108

repared Statement of T. J. Lovela nd

U.S. MISSION NATO

Mr. Chairman and Members o f the Committee:

I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before your Committee

to support the proposals of the Department of Defense fo r an authoriza tio n

of $150 m illion, a TOA of $150 m illion and an appropriation o f $150 mi 11 ion

for Fis cal Year 1980 as the US share of the common funded NATO In fras truc ­

tur e Program. From FY 1968 to FY 1978 the US co ntrib ution to the NATO

Infras truc ture Program was funded under Autho rizations and Appropria tions

fo r M ilit ary Construction Army. St ar tin g In FY 1979 Congress decided to

Include It In M ilit ary Construction - Defense Agencies since the line Item

was In support of a ll three Services. The In fras tructure Program provides

the fa c il it ie s that are necessary to support NATO m il it ary forces and which

are intended fo r common use or have a high degree of common In te re st. The

term covers such varied Items as a ir fie ld s , a ir defense fa c ilitie s , communica tio ns , missile sites, war headquarters, nuclear storage sit es, pipe lin es ,

and POL depots. It does not normally cover general purpose depots, troop

b il le ts , nor has It covered In the past oth er lo gis tics support fa c il it ie s

clos ely related to national standards and pr ac tic es , although a one-time

exception was made to fund such fa c ilitie s from th is program as reimbursement

for ce rtain of the US costs fo r relocatio n from France. Another such exceptio n Is cu rren tly In eff ect fo r the US Special Program which Is a device by

which the US cost share has been reduced. I w il l discuss these Items in

more deta il la te r.

The NATO commonly funded Infras truct ure Program was Inaugurated by the

North Atlan tic Council In 1951 as a follow -on to a si m ilar program begun

In 1950 by the Western European Union countries. The NATO Infra structure

Program has been a most successful common endeavor, and has been cre dited

with fostering a large part of the cohesion among the A ll ie s . Essential

m ilit ary fa c il it ie s costing about $5.7 b illi o n are under construction or

completed, and fa c il it ie s worth another $1.8 b il li o n are programmed. The

program has given NATO network of modern a ir fie ld s , an e ff ic ie n t system
109

o f POL d is trib u tio n and stor ag e, common comm unications w ithout which the 

NATO command str uctu re could not fu nction, essential a ir defense warning 

In s ta ll a ti o n s , and a ir and naval navigatio nal aid s. By J o in tly fin anci ng 

these and oth er types o f f a c ilit ie s designed to enhance the effectiveness 

o f NATO fo rc es, NATO natio ns have demonstrated In a most r e a li s tic way 

th e ir determ ination to prov ide fo r the common defen se.

A ft e r the program had provided most o f the ba sic fa c ilit ie s re qu ire d 

In the common defen se. Its ch ara ct er has gra dully changed. The req uirem ent 

fo r major a ir and naval In s ta ll a ti o n s gave way to the new req uirem ent fo r 

mod erniza tio n and expansion o f e x is ti n g ba sic f a c ilit ie s . A ir fie ld s must 

be Improved so th at the y can supp ort toda y’ s more oomplex a ir c r a ft. The 

POL system should be mod ified to ensure Its a b ility to fu nction In an 

emergency Independently o f th at p a rt o f the system loca ted In France .

Progress In communications technology has re su lted In dram atic changes.

The NATO S a te ll it e Communications System (SATCOK) Is based on the US In te rim 

defense communication s a te ll it e system. Replacement s a te ll it e s (SATCOM 

Phase I I I ) were lau nched,the th ir d and fin a l one In 1978. Anoth er example 

Is the semi~automatIon and In te g ra tio n o f NATO’ s e a rly wa rning system to 

pro vide a contr ol and re port in g system fo r the a ir defense o f A ll ie d Command

Europe. F in a ll y , In or de r to make the program f u lly res ponsive to the 

needs o f the NATO " fle x ib le response " strate gy and as so cia ted fo rc e 

pla nnin g, we have been pro vid in g f a c ilit ie s to support reinforcem en t on 

the fla n ks. Improved a ir defen se, weapons stroage se cu rity Improvement, and 

co nv en tio na l c a p a b il it ie s fo r NATO a ir fo rc es.

The new o ri e n ta ti o n o f the program Is pro vi din g a large pro portio n 

o f the f a c ilit ie s needed by US fo rc es. In p a rti c u la r. I t su pp orts contr olle d 

hu midity storag e which maintains In good conditio n equipment o f our dualbased fo rc es. The program also Inclu des a ir c ra ft surv iv al measures which 

were Implemented by the US A ir Force , w ith the appro val o f Congress, on 

a "p re finance d" ba sis In ord er to ensure e a rly construct io n and we w ill 

achieve recoupment o f some $50 m il li o n In cash or c re d it ag ains t those co sts 

In FY 79- Cu rre nt emphasis Is on such Items as command and contr ol f a c i l i ­

tie s , forward stor ag e, security Improvements, e tc .

M l-6 38 0 - 7 9 - 8
110

In a d d itio n, the pre vi ousl y In e li g ib le ca tego ry o f lo g is ti c s f a c i l i ­

ti e s Is re ce ivin g more a tt e n tio n In the framework o f NATO's new emphasis 

on co op erative lo g is ti c s e ffo rts under the Long-Term Defense Program approved 

at the Washington Summit In Hay 1978*

We have pre vio usly announced th at we had made gre at str id e s in max imizing 

US benefits from the program. A major b e n e fit has come from our success 

In persuading ou r A ll ie s to share $100 m il li o n o f ou r co sts In re lo cating 

our forces from Fra nce . In e ffe c t, the Defense Pla nn ing Committee (th e 

North A tl a n ti c Council less France) agreed in 1969 to co st -s hare , under 

cert ain conditio ns, up to th at amount I f our m il it a ry se rvices could prov ide 

and J u s ti fy s u ffic ie n t fund requ es ts. As re po rted to you pre vio usly , NATO 

la te r agreed to co ntinue the agreement through the end o f CY 1973. and to

prov ide funds "a p r io r i. " This pe rm itted us to use NATO money d ir e c tly to 

fin an ce construction ra th er than spend US funds which have to be recouped 

a ft e r pro je cts are com pleted. NATO's fin a l In sta llm ent was made availa ble 

In S lice XXI 11 and US se rvices are us ing th is money as expeditio usly as 

possi ble , w ith the fin a l portlo p now being used fo r comp letion o f the MR

LOGAREUR f a c ilit ie s .

The agreement w ith NATO stip u la te d th at NATO's payments fo r US re lo ca ­

ti o n constitu te d purchase o f a part o f the US claim ag ains t France fo r los s 

o f use o f US bases In France . Thus, any eventua l payment by France ag ains t 

the claim would be div id ed between NATO and the US In the pro portio n th at 

NATO's payments bore to the e n ti re US co st o f re lo cation (estimated at about 

36?). In 1975, the Se cretary of Defense Informed you th at the Un ited States 

and France had agreed to s e tt le the claim fo r $100 m il li o n to be pa id In 

equal In sta llm ents ov er a five -y e a r period. In June 1975» France made the 

f ir s t payment o f $20 m il li o n and the US deposited NATO's share o f some $7*2 

m il li o n to a NATO account In Br us se ls. Th is proced ure has been fo llo wed 

through 1978, w ith the fin a l payment due In June 1979* NATO Is using It s 

share to augment Its lim ite d In fr a str u ctu re funds and thus p a rtia ll y o ff s e t

In fla tio n .

In response to US req uireme nts, NATO has agreed to au tomatic dele tion 

procedures to reduce or avoid fu tu re backlogs o f In fr a str u ctu re pro je cts . 

These procedures ap ply to S lice XXI, approved In 1971, and subsequent annual
I ll

li c e programs. NATO has now v ir tu a ll y clo sed ou t a ll s li c e programs p rio r 

to S lice XXI. There Is some urgency In these e ffo rts because In fla tio n In 

Europe has rendered availa ble In fr a str u ctu re funds In s u ff ic ie n t to pay fo r 

a ll o f the pro je cts programmed In p rio r ye ars. ’ Our A ll ie s have endorsed 

the US positio n th at new funds w il l not be added to old In fr a str u ctu re 

s li c e programs. Thus, pro je cts must compete fo r availa ble programmed funds 

w it h in each s li c e , or drop ou t o f the program when funds allo cate d fo r th at 

s li c e are gone.

There are two fa cto rs which serve to reduce our share of the to ta l 

amount o f money used In the In fr a str u ctu re Program. F ir s t, In 1970, the 

Euro-Group (NATO less France, Portuga l, US, Icelan d, and Canada) pledged 

an ad d itio na l $A20 m il li o n (c lo ser to $500 m il li o n In devalued d o lla rs ) 

over a five -y e a r pe rio d to the In fr a s tr u c tu re Program, as part o f the 

European Defense Improvement Program (ED IP), to pe rm it urg en t Implementati o n o f the NATO a ir c ra ft shelter program. Th is pe rm itted e arly recoupment 

o f some o f the US pre fin ancing funds spent on th is program and re lieved 

the pre ssure on programmed In fr a str u ctu re money to allo w fund ing o f additio n a l NATO In te gr ate d Communications System (NICS) pro je cts . When the 

EDIP c o n tr ib u tio n Is co ns idered , the e ff e c ti v e US share o f Slic es XXI-XXV 

(1970-1975) was reduced from 29.67$ to ap prox im ately 20$.

The second fa c to r Is th at host natio ns pr ov ide the land , access roa ds, 

and u t i l i t y connections fo r each NATO In fr a str u ctu re p ro je c t. These host 

natio n co n tr ib u tio n s are es tim ated to average abo ut 13$ o f co sts pa id by 

NATO common fu nd ing. I f these co sts were added to the to ta l, the US 

co n tr ib u ti o n would drop anoth er thre e to fo ur pe rcen t.

In th is co nn ec tio n, the US co ntinue s to act as ho st natio n fo r NATO 

In fr a s tr u c tu re pro je cts In Iceland, Bermuda and the US. In the past , the 

few p ro je cts co ns truc te d fo r US Forces at these lo cations have been on US 

m il it a ry re serv ations, and so ther e has been no s ig n if ic a n t additio na l co sts 

fo r access roa ds, land , or u t i l i t y co nn ec tio ns . In 1979» work w ill commence 

on a NATO s a te ll it e ground term inal at K efla vlk , Icelan d. Pursuant to 

our host na tio n re s p o n s ib il it y (Ice la nd has no m il it a ry fo rc es, nor does 

I t con tr ib u te fi n a n c ia ll y to NATO In fr a s tr u c tu re ), we w ill prov ide from
112

w it h in the FY 1979 In fr a str u ctu re funds u t ilit y and access roads to the 

pro je ct s it e at an estim ated corst o f s li g h tly less than $1 m il li o n .

We have also taken ste ps to maximize US In d u str ia l p a rt ic ip a ti o n In 

the In fr a str u ctu re Program. During ou r negotiations concern ing the NATO 

In te gr at ed Communications System (NICS ), when ou r A ll ie s In sis te d on a 

sh aring o f the pr oduct io n, we In sis te d on mod ify ing the NATO ru le which 

allowe d host na tio ns to Inclu de tax es and customs In th e ir comparison of 

bids (even though NATO did not hsve to pay these le v ie s ), thus fa vo ring loca l 

or re gion al firm s. The fin a l agreement gave us s a ti s fa c ti o n on the taxes 

and customs Issues and gua ranteed th at 38? o f the prod uc tio n would be 

carr ie d ou t by US contr acto rs , w ith a p o s s ib il it y o f as much as 581, depending 

on the co mpetitive st re ngth of US In dustry. Past d o ll a r de va luations have 

helped maximize US In dustr y's p a rti c ip a ti o n . In e ffe c t, fo ur o f the f ir s t 

fi v e large NICS contracts have been awarded to US contracto rs — we did not 

compete In the f if t h contr act. The DPC has also agreed th at the new p o licy 

on ta x-f re e bid comparison w ill govern fu tu re In fr a s tr u c tu re Programs.

We co ntinue to en joy a gre ate r benefit from th is NATO program than 

co uld be expected from the size o f our co n tr ib u ti o n . I f we excluded f a c ilitie s which are used In common by a l, na tio ns — f a c ilit ie s which would In 

any case have re qu ire d common fund ing - - we have had s ig n if ic a n t success In 

co nv incing NATO th at US pro je cts are worthwhile . We have Ju st completed 

a stu dy fo r the House Appro pr ia tio ns Committee which concluded th at fo r

Slic es XXIII - XXIX (1972-1978) US pro je cts amounted to 41.36? of a ll 

pro je cts programmed fo r use by natio na l fo rc es, but our formal contr ib ution 

remained at 27.3? o f the e n ti re program, and ou r "e ff e c tiv e " share was only 

21.56?. It is apparent, th ere fo re , th at we have a d is tin c t fin a n c ia l 

In te re st In the contin ui ng success o f the NATO In fr a s tr u c tu re Program. As 

long as we can f i t ou r national programs In to the available common funds, 

the US w il l benefit d ir e c tly from th is NATO e ffo r t. In add itio n, we have 

had fo r the pe rio d 1975-1979, a new US Special Program o f In fr a str u ctu re 

pro je ct In support o f "s ta tioned fo rc e s ." Through th is device we have 

Included In , t fo r the excl usiv e ben efit o f US fo rc es, many o f the Items 

such as warehouses and oth er lo g is tic su pp ort f a c ilit ie s which are now

In e li g ib le fo r NATO funds.
113

Negotia tio n o f the size and co st shares fo r the In fr a s tr u c tu re Slic es 

XXVI-XXX (1975-1979) was clo sely re la te d to ou r NATO e ffo rts concern ing 

burde nsharing and s a ti s fa c ti o n o f the requireme nts o f the Jackson-Nunn 

Amendment. The US p o sitio n a t the s ta rt o f negotiations was th at the NATO 

m il it a ry requireme nts o f some $3 b illi o n fo r the fi ve -y e a r pe rio d could be 

safe ly pared to $2 b illio n . In a d d itio n, and In consonance w ith a request 

by the Jo in t House/Senate Appro pr ia tio ns Committees, the US Mission asked 

th a t the o ffic ia l US share be reduced to 20?. Wh ile I t proved Impossible 

to reduce the o ffic ia l US share below 27.23? (because to do so would have 

le f t Germany as the la rg est o ffic ia l c o n tr ib u to r) , ou r A ll ie s agreed to 

Includ e a sp ec ial program o f about $100 m il li o n (rais ed to some $1^0 m il li o n 

w ith the subsequent augmentation o f the 1975-1979 program) In su pp ort o f 

US fo rces which by th e ir ca lc u la tio n s reduced the e ff e c ti v e US share to 20?.

As the Se cretary o f Defense Informed you In January 1975, a corr ect 

ca lc u la tio n shows the new e ff e c ti v e share to be 21.56?, but we belie ve 

th at to be a good re su lt and the best we could achieve under then cu rrent 

economic conditio ns. We have now programmed the e n ti re amount devoted to 

the US Special Program and we belie ve the re sults to be co nclusive . Our 

sc reen ing o f ca nd idate pro je cts has been ve ry tho rough In ord er to remain 

fa it h fu l to ou r commitment to Congress to Inc lude only pro je cts which 

are not no rm ally e li g ib le fo r NATO fu nd ing. Thus, a ll o f the Special 

Program funds have le g it im a te ly co n stitu te d an e ff e c ti v e re duction In the 

US co st share o f the normal In fr a str u ctu re Program.

The co st c e ll in g o f Slic es XXVI-XXX was fixe d at only $1.35 b illio n 

because o f the fi n a n cia l s tra it s o f two o f ou r A ll ie s . Because o f th is 

and the funds earmarked fo r the US Special Program, NATO was le f t w ith less 

than tw o-t hir ds o f the funds which the US conside red essential to maintain 

NATO's de fens ive po stur e. As In the prev ious five -y e a r period, these funds 

were programmed at a ra te which exhausted them be fore the f i f t h ye ar. In 

consequence, Defense M in is te rs agreed In 1977 to an Increa se o f $523 

m il li o n - - thus bringin g to ta l fun d a v a il a b il it y In the 1975-1979 pe rio d 

clos e to the $2 b il li o n which we o rig in a ll y supp orted. The Incre ase funds 

Includ e pro vis io n o f an Increa se o f the US Special Program by $38 .5 m il li o n , 

thus perm itting r e a li s tic Increments In 1978-1979.
114

ego tia tio ns between the na tio ns fo r a new co st c e il in g and co st sh aring 

agreement fo r S lic es XXXI-XXXV (1980—1981*) have been delayed awaitin g 

ev alu atio n o f the to ta l requirement by NATO M il it a ry A u th orities (NMAs).

In e ff e c t, at the Washington Summit in May 1976, NATO Heads of Government 

agreed to program matic improvements In ten c r itic a l defense areas, many 

o f which re quire applica tio n o f In fr a str u ctu re fund s. Thus In October 

1978, the NMAs es tim ated the req uirem ent at $6.65 b il lio n fo r co ntin uing 

programs and some $1.8 b il li o n fo r the new programs wh ich , w ith In fl a ti o n 

and co ntinge nc ies, amounted to some $8 .5 b illio n . The NMAs have stated 

th at th is is a "re a l" req uirement which sho uld be Implemented In 1980-198*4, 

but they recognized th at p ra c tic a li ty may lim it the availa ble funds to 

about $6.65 b illio n , a fig u re they regard as the bar ely acceptab le minimum. 

This corresponds to the US negotiating stance In th at i t would prov ide fo r 

an Increase o f abo ut 50% In the imple me nta tion ra te o f the 1975*1979 pe rio d 

(inclu din g prefinan ce d works) and fo r repayment fo r prefinan ce d p ro je cts .

We have been jo in ed at th at fi g u re by fo ur o f the A ll ie s ; one A ll y has 

proposed $5.34 b illio n w ith a la te r rev iew to determine whether the Impleme nta tion ra te J u s tif ie s additio nal fund s, and oth er A ll ie s are su pp ortin g 

a c e ll in g o f $4.1*5 b illi o n - w ith or without the la te r rev iew . We aim to 

ach ieve agreement at le ast to the $5.34 b illio n le ve l w ith la te r rev iew 

as In the la s t two fi ve -y e a r programs. The co st sh aring port io n o f the 

negotiation has been ve ry d if f ic u lt w ith most A ll ie s in s is ti n g on a re tu rn 

to o f f ic ia l, ra th er than e ff e c ti v e shares. As a compromise between those 

desirin g to re vert to o ffic ia l shares and the US which is in s is ti n g th at a ll 

opera tio nal pro je cts fo r US fo rces assigned to NATO must be provided by 

the In fr a s tr u c tu re Program, Norway and Denmark have proposed th at a la rg e 

portio n o f the program be devoted to a new "Rein forceme nt Support Ca tego ry." 

This category would pro vid e the fa c ilit ie s in co njunction w ith exter na l 

reinforcem en ts (POMCUS, sto rag e fo r mun ition s and a ttr itio n replacement 

equipment, a e ria l and sea port s, e tc .) Ir re spective of h is to ric a l e lig ib ilit y 

considera tio ns, but in consonance w ith NMAs' es ta blished p rio r it ie s . We 

have reason to belie ve th at th is pro posal w ill be s u ffic ie n tl y a tt ra c ti v e 

to NATO na tio ns to allo w re solu tion o f the co st sh aring qu es tio n and we
115

ill recommend Its acceptance I f I t provides the fa c ilit ie s which w ill 

allo w the US to Implement it s commitments made at the Summit.

I sho uld li k e now to de sc rib e b rie fly , f ir s t , the NATO system fo r 

processin g In fr a str u ctu re p ro je cts , and second, how the Un ited State s 

a rr iv e s at Its es tim ate fo r US oblig a tio ns fo r In fr a s tr u c tu re .

Each year the Major NATO Commanders draw up a l i s t o f construction 

or mod erniza tio n pro je cts which the y co ns ider ess ential fo r the su pp ort of 

th e ir fo rc es. These pro je cts are reviewed by a ll p a rt ic ip a ti n g na tio ns 

w it h in the NATO M il it a ry Committee, the NATO In fr a str u ctu re Committee, 

and f in a lly w it h in the Defense Pla nning Committee (which Is the North 

A tl a n ti c Council w ithout Fran ce). The pro je cts fin a lly se lected make up 

the yearly In fr a str u ctu re Program or S lic e . In the US, each proposed annual 

s li c e Is reviewed thorou gh ly w it h in the Ex ec utive Branch, s ta rti n g w ith 

the In te re ste d US subo rdinate m il it a ry commands and continuin g throug h the 

US Commander-ln-Chlef, Europe, and the Com mander-In-Chief, A tla n tic , to 

the Jo in t Ch iefs o f S ta ff and the M il it a ry Departm ents, the Department o f 

Sta te , and a ll In te re ste d o ff ic e s w it h in the O ff ic e o f the Sec retary o f 

Defense.

The fin a l NATO s li c e Is re a ll y an approved l i s t o f m il it a ry co nst ru cti o n requireme nts and no thing more. A ft e r s li c e ap pr ov al, the ho st co un try 

In which a p ro je ct Is to be b u il t takes f u ll re s p o n s ib il it y fo r the work.

I t must obta in the necessary land (a t Its own expense), pla n u t ilit ie s 

connections and access roads (which I t la te r build s at It s own exp ense), 

prepare en gine ering pla ns and sp e c if ic a ti o n s , and develop co st estim ates . 

When a ll Is rea dy, the host co un try submits the pro je ct w ith a ll su pp ortin g 

data to the NATO Payments and Progress Committee fo r co nstruction a u th o ri ­

zation and fund commitment. Before ag reeing , the Payments and Progress 

(PtP) Committee s a ti s fi e s Its e lf th at the p ro je c t s t i l l represen ts a v a lid 

m il it a ry requ ire men t, conforms to NATO c r ite r ia . Is reasonable In cost, and 

Is In oth er resp ec ts e li g ib le under NATO In fr a str u ctu re ru le s.

When the PtP Committee aut ho riz es construction o f an In fr a str u ctu re 

p ro je c t, the US oblig ate s funds from It s annual appro priation fo r It s share 

o f th at p ro je c t. Let me exp la in b rie fly how we es tim ate ou r co sts fo r FY 

1980. The es tim ate Is developed la rg e ly by the USNATO s ta ff In Brussels
because I t has d a lly co nt ac t w ith our A ll ie s on In fr a s tr u c tu re m atters.

This s ta ff Is the US agency cl osest to the plan s and pro gress o f the va rio us 

"h o st" countrie s.

Last September, USNATO made a care fu l rev iew o f the NATO In fr a s tr u c ­

tu re p ro je ct backlog - th at Is , o f a ll pro je cts Inc luded In pre vi ousl y approved 

annual slice s which had not ye t been au th orize d by the PtP Committee fo r 

ac tual construction. The ba sic records - th at Is , the ho st co un try semiannual re ports - were checked. In fo rm atio n was co lla te d fo r a ll lo ca tions 

by p ro je ct ca tego ry and by co st sh aring agreement, on the amount o f money 

alre ad y auth or ized by the PtP Committee and on the amount o f money rem aining 

to be au thoriz ed. Th is I n it ia l ste p thu s prov ided a fi rm base from which to

s ta rt. To th is pro je ct backlog USNATO then added It s es tim ate o f the 

contents o f the subsequent slice s which would re quire fund ing du rin g FY 

1980. For example, Slice XXX w il l be approved in A p ri l 1979 and Slic e 

XXXI Is scheduled fo r appro val by December ,979- From th is to ta l o f 

pro je ct backlog, plus planned programs fo r FY 1980, USNATO then su btracted 

the amount o f those pro je cts which I t es tim ated would be given funding 

auth orization by the PtP Committee be fore the begin nin g o f FY 1980, th at 

Is , be fore 1 October 1979- Th is may be shown In ta bula r form as fo llo w s:

(I) As o f 30 September 1978, value o f pro je cts In

Slic es II through XXX, yet to be au thor ized

by the NATO PtP Corrmlttee to ta ll e d

(2) Deduct estim ated PtP Committee auth orizations du rin g FY ,979

(3) Total value o f work to be funded as o f

1 October 1979

(A) To th is , we must add S lice XXXI

(e st im ate d), scheduled fo r app roval 

by the end o f 1979

(5) T ota l, Items (3) and (A) above

$1,82 2.0 m il li o n

$ 5,1 .0 m il li o n

$1,31 1.0 m il li o n

$1,33A.7 m il li o n

$2,6A5.7 m il li o n

USNATO then applie d co un try plan ning fa cto rs such as economic co nd iti o n s , a v a il a b il it y o f contr acto r e ffo r t and pace at which M in is tr y o f 

Defense construction personnel are expected to process fun d re qu es ts. From
117

th is calcu lus, we estimate the fund requests to be approved with in NATO in

FY 80 of $51*6.0 m illion.

In defense of our FY80 request, and of our request for supplemental

au th or ization and appropriation fo r FY79, I should like to discuss the

effects of dollar dev aluatio n on th is prtogram which Is governed by our

commitments to a fina nc ia l ce lUng defined In "rea l values ." Because our

estimates fo r FY78 were made at a rate of $3-38 to the I AU (the denominatio n of our commitment and eventual ob lig at ion) and our ob lig ations were

made vario usly at $3,738, $3,868, and $l*.2O8, we Incurred a shortfa ll In

funds of some $13-6 m illion to which must be added some $6 m illion loss

In making payments at bank rates during the fir s t half of FY1978, for a

to ta l shortfa ll of some $19.6 m illio n. We were able to accormodate this

situ at io n by an Increase In the rate of recoupment of pre financin g funds

and by postponing some $15 m illion of ob lig ations until FY79. Even this

precarious solution was only made possible by a decision by Congressional

Committees obviattng the requirement to revalue the to ta l of our unliqu idated

ob lig ations (some $300 m illio n , most o f which Is ca rried at the $3-738 rate

which pertained until 31 December 1977), and by postponing the th ird

qu arter CY ,978 payment and consequent currency exchange loss Into FY79-

These actions created a mortgage aga inst FY79 funds and, In ad dition, we

estim ate an ad ditio na l currency exchange loss of about $12 m illion resu lting

from the Increase In the rate of $3-738 at the time of the estima te to the

curre nt $4.1*1*9 since 1 January 1979. Associated losses of some $18.1*

m illion on the five qua rter ly pay sheets (one postponed from FY 1978) bring

to ta l currency exchange losses for FY 1978 and 1979 to some $50 m illion.

The FY ,979 supplemental request fo r the In fras tructure Program amounts to

$1*6.2 m illion In appro priatio ns and $3l*.9 m ill io n In au th or izat ion. We

be lie ve that the granting of the supplemental request, and perhaps some

ad ditio na l recovery of prefinanced funds, w il l allow us to meet US

conmltments through 30 September 1979 even though our effort s at Increasing

the rate of Implementation of In fras tructure proje cts appear to be succeeding

beyond our expectations. It Is apparen t, however, tha t our current appropriation w ll , be exhausted by the end of Ap ril and th at, fa ll in g approval
118

of the supplemental request by that tim e, we w il l be forced to bring the

program to a halt fo r fina nc ial reasons at the same time that we are

pleading with our A llie s to double, or even trip le , the cost of the program.

We would request, therefore, that approval of the supplemental request

be expedited as much as possible .

for FY 1980, the currency exchange problem w il l s t ill be with us In

tha t dollar dev aluatio n has already Increased our estima te to some $,60

m illio n and the ra te of Implementation Is apt to continue to Increase by

as much as $A0 m illion over our origin al es tim ate . While th is phenomenon

supports our eff o rt s to achieve a larg er Infras truct ure Program, It w il l

also require ad ditio na l US funds from the US MILCON Program.

RENEGOTIATION OF PERCENTAGE

Mr. Loveland . This is negotiated every 5 years when we decide 

on the ceiling for the amount required for the following 5 years.

Senator Laxalt. What is renegotiated, the percentage?

Mr. Loveland . Yes. We started at about 50 percent when the 

program started in 1950 and the European economy was ruined. 

Gradually we have dropped the U.S. share to an official share of 27 

percent which was calculated in last y ear’s hearings at 21.5 percent 

because of some oth er considerations.

DETERMINATION OF FISCAL YEAR 1980 INFRASTRUCTURE REQUEST

Senator Laxalt. Our share I gather this year is $150 million?

Mr. Fliakas. The $150 million is a budget request on th e basis of 

the anticipated commitments or obligations tha t will be required in 

fiscal year 1980.

Senator L axalt. H ow do we arrive a t that figure? Does somebody 

come up with a budget somewhere?

Mr. L oveland . No, sir. I examine the backlog of projects that are 

already approved in annu al programs and which we expect will 

come forward for funding.

Senator L axalt. Within the full NATO structure?

Mr. Loveland . Within the full infrastructure program.

Senator L axalt. Do we do the planning?

Mr. Loveland . The host nations do it. The nations in which the 

works are to be performed.

Mr. Fliakas. As I understand it, the NATO m ilitary commanders 

responsible for various areas of the alliance, develop their requirements and submit them on an approved project basis for payment 

annually, the process actually goes on throughout the year in a 

regular cycle. We are in the process now of negotiating the next 5- 

year program. We have gone on record, as I indicated in my 

statement, for a much larger program based on the long-term 

defense program needs agreed to by the heads of state.

We feel that a sizable increase is in order. The last 5-year program was at $540 million IAU’s, which is an infrastructure ac-
119

counting unit, currently 4.45 to th e dollar. We believe, based on the 

requirements established by the NATO commanders plus our own 

assessment, that at least a threefold increase is required.

Now, all nations do not agree with that large a program and this 

is in the negotiation stage now. Hopefully it will be settled by May 

of this year, at the next defense planning committee meeting.

Senator Laxalt. Mr. Secretary, do you or some of your staff 

people meet with your counterparts annu ally to come up with 

these numbers?

Mr. F liakas . The U.S. mission in NATO, which Mr. Loveland 

represents, is our instrume nt for that.

Senator Laxalt. So you a re the man?

Mr. Loveland . Yes, sir.

Senator Laxalt. I am just trying to find out.

Mr. F liakas . We have a U.S. mission in NATO which join with 

the international staff in developing these programs.

Senator Laxalt. This is a process I guess tha t is ongoing and 

sometime during the course of each year you sit down with your 

counterpart and come up with an annual budget that results in a 

request to this subcommittee?

Mr. Loveland . No, sir. There are thre e levels of commitment. 

The first is a 5-year commitment of a ceiling where the nations 

agree to pay their share of the total bill.

Senator Laxalt. That is a percentage figure?

Mr. Loveland . Tha t is a percent figure of a number.

Senator Laxalt. So you really have a 5-year gross dollar 

amount?

NATO SLICE GROUP

Mr. Loveland . Tha t is correct, except that it is not a gross dollar 

amount because the exchange rate of the dollar changes occasionally. It is a commitm ent to a real value. Then each year a gainst tha t 

commitment the military authorities submit programs much as we 

are submitting one to you here now. Those programs are not 

funded a t that time. They are simply a shopping list of the projects 

tha t need to be built.

After the approval of th e ann ual program, the host nations develop plans and specifications as come into a body called the Payments and Progress Committee, in which I have a man, with their 

fund requests, much as we come to the Appropriations Committee. 

But they come in individually on each project with fully developed 

plans. That is the kind of requirement that I try to estimate each 

year and which led to $150 million for fiscal year 1980.

Senator Laxalt. Does this $150 million as a practical ma tter 

come to us as an accomplished fact?

Mr. F liakas . Yes; in the sense tha t it is our estim ate of the 

requirements tha t will be presented to the Payments and Progress 

Committee throughout the year. If we are to maintain our commitment as a full partner in the NATO Alliance, then we are obliged 

to pay our share.

The $150 million estimate is o ur share of the requirements that 

will be presented for payment in this fiscal year 1980.

Senator Laxalt. What commitment, if any, is secured on the 

part of the money share for the 5-year plan?
120

Mr. Fliakas. Like most any long-term commitm ent it is subject 

to annual appropriations.

Senator Laxalt. The 5-year amount in real dollar terms then is 

our moral commitment on the front end?

Mr. Fliakas. More tha n that.

Senator Laxalt. Is it heavier than that?

Mr. Fliakas. Certainly moral in the sense that we are a full 

partner in the alliance. When, the United States and all the other 

15-member nations have agreed to a 5-year program we are in a 

sense committed then to respond.

Now, there have been instances where at the end of the fiscal 

year the U.S. mission has not had the full appropriations on hand 

to support a given program and they have had to defer or delay 

projects.

If that occurs late in the year we probably could stretch it out 

and make do. But if it occurs early in the year, if we have not 

appropriated a sufficient amount, then we would in effect defer 

and delay the entire infrastructure program, not jus t for the U.S. 

benefit but for all nations.

Senator Laxalt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thin k I have a 

little bit better un derstanding about this.

NATO FISCAL YEAR 1980 PROGRAM THAT SUPPORTS REQUEST

Senator H uddleston. Just a follow-on question. You determine 

that $150 million is our shar e of the overall objective of construction, I take it, only on those projects tha t are approved, based on 

our percentage of tha t individual project. It is a per-project proposition?

Mr. Loveland. Yes, sir.

Senator H uddleston. We are not just authorizing $150 million 

period?

Mr. Loveland. No, sir. It is a per-project estim ate on my part.

Senator H uddleston. You are anticipating there will be enough 

projects?

Mr. Loveland. There will be $600 million worth of projects this 

year of which the U.S. share will be $150 million.

EFFECTS OF APPR OPRIATION CHANGE

Senator H uddleston. What would be the practical effect of our 

appropriating a figure different from th e $150 million?

Mr. Loveland. I would try to use any extra funds you gave me 

wisely. [Laughter.]

Senator H uddleston. What if they were less? A more likely 

situation is th at they might be somewhat less.

Mr. Loveland. As Mr. Fliakas said, if a t some point during the 

year my man has used his entire appropriation he has to call a 

halt to the program. We a re currently at tha t point in this year’s 

appropriation. I am faced with a situation of a U.S. Air Force fund 

request for some $40 million about half of which is recoupment of 

prefinancing tha t I can’t finance until we find the funds. It will be 

a political brouhaha and we would be called to account by our 

allies.

Senator H uddleston. There would be a negative reaction?
12

Mr. Loveland. Yes, sir.

Mr. Fliakas. It would be embarrassing because in order to meet 

the objectives that were agreed to by the heads of state we are 

pressing for a larger program. And then not to be able to meet our 

annu al commitment to the current smaller program would be inconsistent with that position.

ALLIED COMMITMENT TO INFRASTRUCTURE

Senator Huddleston. Have the other NATO members generally 

met t heir slice percentage?

Mr. Loveland. Not generally; always, everybody.

Senator Huddleston. Is there a backlog now of infr astructure

projects?

BACKLOG OF CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Loveland. Yes, sir. It is from the backlog that I calculated 

the amount of projects that would come to the committee this year. 

It is around $1.3 billion which would grow to $2.6 billion with the 

approval of the next slice at the end of this year.

Senator Huddleston. Is this generally all types of facilities or is 

there a type t ha t is lagging fu rther?

Mr. Loveland. No, sir, it is all of the various kinds of m ilitary 

construction that you normally see.

Mr. Fliakas. If I may add, projects that are considered eligible 

for infr astructure funding. There are some categories of projects 

that are considered unilateral requirements.

Mr. Loveland. Personnel support, for instance.

LONG-TERM DEFENSE PROGRAM

Senator Huddleston. Is the infr astructure program for fiscal 

1980 based on policy laid out in the 1978 NATO long-term defense 

program? Or will we receive more of these in the next 5-year plan?

Mr. Loveland. There is some small portion, as a ma tter of fact 

the first division equivalent of POMCUS in what we are foreseeing 

for the $150 million. But the amount of t ha t part of the program 

will grow in the next 4 or 5 years.

THREE PERCENT INCREASE IN DEFENSE SPENDING

Senator Huddleston. As I u nderstand it, in the 1978 LTDP each 

NATO ally pledged to increase defense spending 3 percent a year 

to make certain force improvements. How does the 3 percent relate 

to the military construction portion? Do you expect construction 

increases to be more or less than the 3 percent?

Mr. Loveland. I expect it to be considerably more in the infrastru cture program, in that we are going to at least double the size 

of the program in comparison to the previous 5 years, and maybe 

triple it, depending on how successful our negotiations are.

Mr. Fliakas. There is no direct correlation between the 3-percent 

general increase in defense level spending and the construction 

program. As Mr. Loveland indicated, we expect a twofold or perhaps threefold increase.
122

Senator H uddleston. Substantially more in military construction?

Mr. Loveland. Yes, sir, in infrastruc ture consistent with the 

direction we believe we have received from the Congress which is 

to rely more on the infrastructure program for our funding of 

construction needs.

Senator H uddleston. Is this still in negotiation, this long-term 

program?

Mr. Loveland. The long-term defense program is no longer in 

negotiation, but the 5-year program is. I think Secretary Fliakas 

said we expect to conclude the negotiations by the time the Ministers meet in May.

Senator H uddleston. H ow do you convert this in terms of the 

necessary U.S. appropriation?

Mr. Fliakas. If I might interject, our estim ate is based on the 

advice of the NATO commanders for the entire NATO effort— 

including the long-term defense program which includes maritime 

posture, reinforcement capability, POL storage, the many, many 

initiatives.

So these are not jus t related to U.S. direct programs although we 

have a very healthy share of it. As I indicated in my statement, we 

expect to have 43 percent of the next slice to benefit U.S. needs. 

But the major NATO commanders, the NATO commanders which 

are internatio nal, have developed the ir requirements on the basis 

of total force needs.

LONG-TERM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Loveland. For the numbers, sir, we are negotiating for a 

range of between $4.45 billion to $6.68 billion. This would require a 

U.S. contribution per year of between $246 million and $368 million, at curren t rates. If we are successful those are the numbers 

tha t we would see in future annual appropriations growing to.

Senator H uddleston. Two to thre e times its c urre nt size?

Mr. Loveland. Yes, sir.

Senator H uddleston. Over what period of time would that be?

Mr. Loveland. The program covers 1980 to 1984. The appropriations, of course, lag 1 year or 1 V2 years behind that.

Senator H uddleston. We would see a substantial increase even 

in 1981 and 1982?

Mr. Loveland. For 1981 and 1982 we are foreseeing $250 million 

to $300 million at current rates of exchange of the dollar.

ALLIED CONCURREN CE ON CONSTRUCTION CATEGORIES

Senator H uddleston. Is there general agreement among the 

NATO allies about the construction projects, or are there substantial differences?

Mr. Loveland. The types of construction and the particular 

projects are generally agreed to. Our current discussions are on 

the amount of money we are going to have to do the job.
123

POMCUS

Sena tor Huddleston. What specifically do you see in terms of 

POMCUS cost over the next 5 years?

Mr. Loveland. We have been looking at $400 to $500 million for 

the first th ree division equivalents. That appears to be a reasonable 

estimate.

Senator Huddleston. Would this be infrastruc ture financed?

Mr. Loveland. Yes, sir.

INFRAS TRU CTU RE BACKLOG

Senator Huddleston. If the new 5-year program indicates greater emphasis on improving our position in thea ter, is there not also 

the probability that the present infrastructure backlog will be accelerated?

Mr. Loveland. I am not quite sure what acceleration of a backlog is. The liquidation of the backlog?

Senator Huddleston. Yes. Would it be liquidated faster?

Mr. Loveland. We would go on increasing the rate of implementation of the projects and have found a number of procedures that 

will help us do it.

effect of scope increase and dollar devaluation

Senator Huddleston. In the fiscal year 1980 how much of its 

increase over prior years is due to additional programs and how 

much simply to the effects of inflation and currency valuation?

Mr. Loveland. Most of the increase is due to the fact that slice 

29 was a very big one in response to some of our U.S. requirements. 

Consequently, the number of projects grew.

Now, since the time that I estim ated our requirem ent at $150 

million, fluctuation of the dollar has lost us some 6 percent already. Generally, I thin k you can say that the big increase is 

because we had more success in placing U.S. requirements and 

other NATO requirements within the program.

Mr. Fliakas. As in our other items, Mr. Chairman, when we 

discussed our overall military construction program our guidance 

from the Administration is to anticipate at least a slight turn ­

around of the dollar based on the intervention that is being contemplated. Hopefully this will not continue an adverse decline.

U. S. SPECIAL PROGRAM

Senator Huddleston. You point out that we often receive benefits beyond the cost or our contributions to the infrastructu re. In 

the past I believe that our net shar e of NATO has been further 

reduced by a “U.S. special program.” Would you briefly describe 

what this program was, how much money was in it?

Mr. Fliakas. The U.S. special program amounted to about $140 

million. It was to cover requirements that normally would not have 

been eligible for infrastructure funding but were agreed to by the 

other member nations to benefit the United States. Consideration 

of that, as Mr. Loveland indicated before, revised the effective
124

share of our contribution from some 27 percent down to about 21 

percent.

Now, the U.S. special program, of course, terminate d with the 

last 5-year program. In the next 5-year program we expect, not an 

equivalent type of program but ano ther kind of program that will 

benefit the reinforcing nations such as the United States, the 

United Kingdom and Canada by providing those types of facilities 

which are required to receive and move into the combat areas— 

reinforcement elements, including POMCUS, prepositioned stocks 

and forward reserve storage of ammunition.

So this new category of facilities will also serve to not only 

benefit the United States directly but also to reduce our effective 

share.

OFFSET PROGRAM

Senator Huddleston . In addition to the special program we had 

some benefit from the German offset agreement. How much did 

this agreement provide?

Mr. Fliakas. We did receive the benefit of two offset programs 

that I think you are familiar with, both in the amount of 600 

million Deutschmarks, primarily for th e rehabilitation and upgrading of personnel type facilities, barracks that we have, for example.

I can ask General Groves to expand on th at.

General Groves. The program known as the Modernization of 

U.S. Facilities or MOUSF program gave priority to where the 

troops live and where they eat. This program is nearly complete 

now and in the very near future almost all of our troops, soldiers 

and airmen in Germany will have rehabilitated dining rooms, mess 

halls or barrack dormitories.

Unfortunately, the program came to an end before we could go 

onto other priorities and get the whole rehabilitation job done.

Senator Huddleston . The Germans participated in it?

General Groves. The Germans gave the money to us.

Mr. Fliakas. They provided in 1971 600 million Deutschmarks 

which was the equivalent then of $180 million to $185 million. 

Then 3 years late r another 600 million Deutschmarks, but this 

time tha t was equivalent to about $230 million.

Senator Huddleston. Is that a similar agreement being pursued 

now?

Mr. Fliakas. Not presently, but they have participated directly 

in other endeavors, which while not offset programs, which still 

benefit the United States. As in the chart shown earlier the 

German Government did provide for $68 million to bed down that 

brigade in the Garlstadt area. We supplemented that amount with 

appropriated funds for such things as dependents’ housing, leases 

for dependents, and community type facilities, but the operational, 

cantonment area for the forces were provided in total by the Germans and they provided first-rate facilities.

Senator Huddleston . In all cases they provide the land without 

charge?

Mr. Fliakas. That is correct. I might add, sir, for the information 

of the committee, tha t infrastructure projects are supported by the
125

host nations in terms of utilities and access roads, in addition to 

providing th e land.

While the alliance provides for the brick and mortar of construction, the host nation provides the utilities and access roads.

Senator Huddleston . Do other countries spend a similar amount 

outside of the infrastructu re for the ir own troops, the ir own 

materiel?

Mr. Fliakas. I think, sir, that was the subject of the heads of 

state when the President committed the United States and the 

allies did also, to a 3-percent increase in the level of defense spending.

I can provide for the record the relative amount each nation 

spent as part of its gross national product for defense purposes.

[The information follows:]

NATO DEFENSE EXPENDIT URES AS PERCENTAGE OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT

Country 1973 1974 197 5 1976 1977 1978 •

Belg ium ............................ 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3

Denmark. .......................... 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.5

France . ............................. 3.8 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.9 4.0

Germ any2

.......................... 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3

Greece . ............................. 4.1 4.3 6.5

Italy. ................................ 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.6

Luxembourg........................ 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1

Netherlands.. ...................... 3.3 3.3 3.5 3 3 3 6 3 4

Norway. ............................ 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.2 Portugal. ........................... 6.0 7.4 5.3 4.1 3.5 3.3 Turkey . ............................. 4.1 3.9

United Kingdom. .................. 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.7 NATO Europe 3

..................... 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6

Canada . ............................ 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 United States...................... 6.0 61 6 0 53 5 4 50 Total NAT O3

....................... 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.2

' Preliminary estimates.

’ These percen tages have been calculated without takin g into account the expenditures on Berlin; if these expenses were included the percen tages 

would be as follows: 197 3— 4. 2; 197 4— 4.4; 19 75 — 4 4; 1976— 4.3 ; 197 7— 4.2; and 197 8— 4.1.

1

 These percen tages have been calcu lated without Greece and Turkey Information not availa ble

Senator Huddleston . They all are making expenditures outside 

of the infra structure?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir, indeed they are.

U.S. PREFINANCED PROJECTS

Senator Huddleston . Now, on prefinancing, it is good to hear 

about recoupment being substantia lly improved. We, of course, prefinance many projects which qualify for NATO in frastru cture funding. Do you have the total to date on the amount that the United 

States has prefinanced?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir, $674 million has been prefinanced to date 

of which $155 million has been recouped.

In addition, another $179 million has been found to be wha t is 

called nonrecoupable in the sense that they are not eligible for 

infr astructure funding, even though at the time we prefinanced the 

project we filed prefinancing statement.

4 1 - 6 3 8 0 - 7 9 - 9
126

Senator Huddleston. How do you make a decision on what you 

are going to prefinance?

Mr. Fliakas. Mostly, sir, it is based on th e time sensitivity of the 

project and availability of funding in NATO to accommodate tha t 

timing.

Senator Huddleston. The overriding factor is that it is something th at we deem to be very essential?

Mr. Fliakas. Exactly.

Senator Huddleston. If we can get the recoupment later, fine. If 

we can’t, we still have to have it?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes. Let me give an example. The Air Force has 

given a very high priority to the protection of the ir aircraft, in the 

building of aircraft shelters for th eir tactical fighters. A major part 

of th at program has been prefinanced for which we have received 

some recoupment. We still have some to go. Even though under 

NATO eligibility crite ria only 70 percent of those aircraft are 

considered eligible the Air Force objective still remains to provide 

protection for 100 percent.

To th at exten t we will have to provide funds over and above the 

amounts tha t are recouped. However, as a result of last yea r’s 

submission and markup, in this year’s program there is a total 

reliance on the infrastructure program for the roundout of the 

shelters, at least up to 70 percent. Is that not right, General Gilbert?

General Gilbert. Yes.

Senator Huddleston. At what point is the decision made as to 

whether or not you are going to be able to recoup a specific project 

unde r the infrastructure?

Mr. Fliakas. There are very definite categories that have been 

established as being eligible. It is only within the last year tha t the 

categories have been expanded to include such things as POMCUS. 

We also expect hopefully and we have pressed the NATO allies to 

agree tha t theater reserve stockage, and ammo stockage, should be 

eligible.

Senator Huddleston. So when you begin these projects you don’t 

always know wheth er or not they are going to qualify?

Mr. Fliakas. That is right.

Mr. Loveland. We did in our two big ones, the aircraft shelters. 

We knew it qualified, but there was no NATO money for it. In the 

nuclear security program we had the same kind of thing. We 

pursue eligibility until it becomes obvious that we are not going to 

make it before we drop efforts at the recoupment.

Mr. Fliakas. To complete my answer to your question on recoupments, we still have a remainder to date of some $340 million that 

has been prefinanced and is considered to be recoupable. It is 

against that figure that we expect some $20 million in 1979. And as 

I indicated in my statement, another $100 million in recoupment in 

slice 31.

Senator Huddleston. Probably, then, there will always be a need 

for some prefinancing?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir. Our guidance to the military department 

is to be extremely selective and minimize prefinancing. But we 

think we should make a case for those tha t are sensitive to support 

our forces.
127

ALLIED NATIONS PREFINANCING

Senator Huddleston. Do other NATO members do any prefinancing?

Mr. F liakas. Yes.

Mr. Loveland. I made a survey and the United Sstates made 

about 45 percent of the prefinancing actions in NATO, but the 

other 55 was done by our allies.

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Senator Huddleston. Gentlemen, I have some other questions, 

and I am sure members of the committee will have some additional 

questions, too.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hea ring:]
128

uestions Submitt ed by Sena tor Hudd les ton

INFRASTRUCTURE PROCEDURES

Question: I f a fig ure th at was le ss than the $150 milli on 

requested were approp ria ted , how would we reach a decisio n on 

where reductions were to be made?

Answer: NATO funding p ri o ri ti es are a fun ction of NATO mili ­

tary decisio ns on a multi- na tio na l ba si s. Projects are funded 

on a fir s t come, s irs t served ba sis. A U.S. decis ion to reduce 

its share of the funding, would requ ire the U.S. represen tativ e on 

the Payments and Progress Committee to fo re sta ll pr ojec ts th at are 

req uired by oth er na tio ns . This could re su lt in unfavorable ar bitr ar y decisio ns by the se nations ag ainst U.S. pr oj ec ts.

Question: Do oth er NATO members view th eir po rtions of the 

Sli ce as a non-negotiable bill?

Answer: All NATO members accept th eir po rtion s of approved 

pr oj ec ts as a non -negotiable b ill. No othe r na tio n has ever 

delayed a projec t for lac k of na tio na l funds. In fa ct , a ll NATO 

nat ion s except the U.S. ob lig ate th eir funds on an expe nditure 

basis and consequently are not req uir ed to have av ailable appropr ia tion s at the time of fund approval of NATO In fr as truc tu re 

pr oj ec ts.

Question: Do you expect the 3 perce nt to show up in In fr as tr uc ­

tu re , U.S. unil ate ra l expenditures In support of NATO or elsewhere?

Answer: Since the 3 percent (plus in fl at io n) is expected to be 

app lied unevenly between programs in individu al na tio na l defense 

budgets, we do not expect th at i t w il l be a fa ct or in the In frastru ctur e program. In fh ct , we expect the In fr as truc tu re program 

fo r the next 5 yea rs to be at from twice to th ree times the siz e of 

th at of the previou s 5 ye ars.

LONG RANGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM

Question: What is the bas ic th ru st of the long range program; 

th at is , what problem are as do these ob jectives seek to redress?

Answer: The program for the next fiv e yea rs amounts to contin uing programs of the pa st , to estimate those constru ction programs to support new weapons systems, and to include the new LTDP 

requirements such as POMCUS, ammunition sto rag e and fu el reserve 

sto rag e.

Question: Are they curre nt problems or mostly ones an ti cipated in the future?

Answer: We w il l be readdressing mostly our cu rre nt problems.

Question: What types of constru cti on pr oj ec ts are involved, 

and how do they re la te to the object ive s?

Answer: The cl as si c In fras truc tu re constru cti on pr ojec ts 

which pe rtai n to a ir fi el ds fa c il it ie s , naval base fa c il it ie s , 

rada r ne ts, communications systems, et c. The new focus w il l als o 

be on rap id reinforceme nt in support and hence POMCUS, ammunition 

storage and res erv e storag e w ill be some of the major requ irem ents.
129

Question: You mentioned prep ositioning and new systems as 

req uiring future construction. Are there other a nticipated demands 

for construction?

Answer: Besides prepositioning and new systems we foresee 

major amounts of ammunition storage and equipment storage, as we ll 

as ai r and sea r einforcement resolutions.

Question: What new systems do we expe ct to be introduced in 

NATO and wh at types of construction will be asso ciated wi th them?

Answer: As you know, we have introduced our most sophisti cated 

weap ons systems such as F-15 and PATROIT into the NATO arena. As 

we introduce new systems to the t heatre w e woul d expect facility 

mod ifi cat ion wor k and new construction for we apon systems unique 

requirement s.

Question: Do you expect these to be Infrastructure financed?

Answer : Whe nev er possible and when the Infrastructure pro gra m 

can meet the time sensitive requirements for ne w wea pons beddown, 

we wou ld expec t to use Infrastructure funds.

Question: Do you expect the above to create p ressures for 

U.S. unil ateral financing of yet other projects in support of 

NATO?

Answer: We are tryin g to a chieve a construction pr ogram of 

sufficient scope to cover most of the fores eeable U.S. requirements 

to the exten t t hat w e can achieve agreements on a sufficiently hig h 

five-year c elli ng or if new U.S. requirem ents currently unfo reseen 

shou ld e volve than there could be pre ssures for pre financing in the 

future to meet mi lit ary requirements. On the other hand, it is not 

impossible as in the previous 2 five-year p rograms, that our NATO 

allies m ight agree to expand the ceiling when urgent requirements 

are recognized.

Question: Won 't this add to our ann ual f undin g requirements in 

the near term?

Answer: If you are referring to the tota l costs to the U.S. of 

mili tary cons truction in Europe the answer is no. It is, however, 

true that the U.S. contribution to the Infrastructure pro gra m wil l 

grow.

Prefinancing of NATO Projec ts

(The following questions and answers theret o are submitted 

for the record:)

Question: Wha t have we pre financed to date?

Answer: Two large categories of p ref inancing are aircraft 

shelters and nucl ear security program. In ea rly years hawk sites 

pri or to their NATO elig ibility were also prefinanced.

Question: How, specifically, and at what point w ill we r ecoup 

these amounts?

Answer: Of $674 million prefinanced, some $178 million are 

not recou pable be cau se they are not eligible and some $155 mil lion 

have b een recouped. This leaves a balanc e of $34 0 million of p ot en ­

tial recoupments. We ha ve included $100 mil lion of projects for 

recou pment in Sl ice 31 and expect t o ma intain the level at about 

$100 mi llion duri ng t he following two years.
130

Question: What are an tic ip at ed recoupments for FY 1979 and 

FY 1980?

Answer: In FY 1979 and FY I98O we expect to recoup $20 million (which is cu rre ntly planned to be app lied to the Army's F0M3US 

requirement) and to achieve NATO funding in li eu of Congressionally 

approved fina ncing for another $U0 million.

Question: Since we've already es tablishe d th at there is n 't a 

very strong re la tio ns hi p between an approved Slice and the program 

ac tual ly funded, do you thi nk your foreca st of a $100 million re ­

coupment in Sli ce THIRTY ONE w il l ma ter ialize ?

Answer: Yes, we expect recoupments to approximate $100 mi llion .

Question: Since there is obviously a lar ge backlog of NATO 

pro je ct s, is the re any tendency to "postpone" approved recoupments 

in favor of applying funds to ad di tio na l work?

Answer: No, NATO programming is achieved on the basis of 

perceiv ed m ili tary requirements without reg ard as to whether the 

pr oj ec ts have been pre financ ed or not. .

Question: How do NATO recoupments ^.ffect req ues ted app rop riations; th at is , are they cr ed ite d back to the co nstru cti on account, 

or are they miscellaneous re ce ip ts to the treasury ?

Answer: U.S. recoupments from NATO prefina ncing are normally 

cred ite d back to the NATO In fras truc tu re line item in the m ili tary 

con struction program. The one exception was di ct at ed by Congress 

in FY 1979, for the Army POMCUS fa c il it ie s .

/^Question: You main tain th at the re w ill always be some need to 

preTi nance. How much is contained in FY I98O fo r th is purpose, and 

for what pro jec ts?

Answer: In the FY 198O program, the Air Force has requested 

$8.35 millio n to pre financ e fa c il it ie s to beddown new weapon systems. This work is prim arily fa c il it y mo dif ica tion. The $8.35 

million is only 10 p erc ent of the Air Fo rce 's European program.

In additio n, $16.0 million is included for pre cau tionar y prefinanced for sev era l Air Force pr ojec ts th at are not now el ig ib le 

for In fras truc tu re funding, but ef fo rt s are underway to obtain 

th eir e li g ib il it y in the fu tu re .

Question: What is the urgency th at requ ire s pre financ ing for 

the se effo rts ?

Answer: Because of the intro du cti on of new a ir c ra ft at an 

ea rly date in country (from FY February 1979 ho FY Ap ril 1980), the 

NATO program w ill not be responsive to the require ment. We fu lly 

an tic ip ate recoupment in an early In fr as truc tu re sli ce. The early 

need date requ ire s us to bring th is requirement before the Congress 

in th is ye ar 's Air Force m ili tary co nstru cti on program.

UNILATERAL U.S. FUNDING

As opposed to pre fin ancin g, the U.S. als o dir ec tly funds 

ce rtai n ef fo rt s which are cl ea rly in supp ort of the NATO wartime 

mission. You indica te th at i t may be in our economic be st in te res ts to continue th is fo r selec ted programs.

Question: Would you please ela bo rate on th is , ci ting sp ec ific 

examples of what would be in our own be st in te re st to continue?

Answer: The ba sic comparison fa ct or for each analy sis is the 

to ta l number of U.S. un its th at requ ire a sp ec ific fa c il it y as 

compared to the to ta l number of NATO un its (U.S. and al li ed ) th at 

would requ ire the same fa c il it y i f i t were a NATO el ig ib le catego ry.

As an il lu str a ti o n le t us look at the re la ti ve cost to the 

U.S. i f the Army's ammunition upload program were funded through
131

MCA or un de r NATO e lig ib le and fun ded th ro ug h In fra s tru c tu re . The 

basic elem en ts of suc h a c a lc u la ti o n are as fo llow s:

U.S . d iv is io n s: 6

NATO ' 64

C o s t/ fa c il it y /d iv is io n $1 1. 0 m il li o n

U.S. sh ar e of In fra str u c tu re Prog ram 25 perc ent 

U n il a te ra l U.S. fu nd ing - MCA

6 diV . x $1 1. 0M /d iv isio n = $ 6 6 .OM 

NATO c o n tr ib u ti o n by U.S . - In fra str u c tu re

64 d iv . x $1 1. OM /divis ion x 25% = $1 76 .OM 

Thus we se e th a t In fr a str u c tu re fu nd ing co uld in cre ase th e co st to 

th e U.S. by 266 per cen t - fo r th is ty pe o f f a c ility al one.

S im il ar re s u lt s were obta in ed in th e an aly sis o f tr a in in g 

f a c i l i t i e s , c e rta in CW p ro te c ti v e f a c i l i t i e s and c e rta in st ora ge 

and m un iti on s ma int enance f a c i l i t i e s .

The U.S. and NATO u n it comp arison i$ of co urs e, not id e n ti c a l 

fo r a l l p ro je c ts , as i t is to th e amm unition up load ill u s tr a ti o n 

in a l l case s. Henc e, th e ad va ntag e to th e U.S . is not as g re a t in 

a l l ca se s - but i t does rang e between 50 perc ent to 150 p erc en t. 

This an a ly sis was no t made fo r each p ro je c t in th e se rv ic es FY 1980 

su bm ission , but on ly fo r th ose o p era ti o n al su pp or t p ro je c ts th a t 

wer e en vis io ned as be in g li k e ly ca ndid at es fo r in c lu sio n in NATO 

c r i t e r i a - i f such a re qu es t were to be made by th e U.S .

*T his in fo rm at io n ta ke n from : "I he M il it a ry Balan ce 19 78 -79" , 

In d u s tr ia l I n s titu te o f S tr a te g ic S tu die s, London 1978.

Que stio n: How much o f th e FY I98O re quest f a ll s in to th is 

ca te gory , and fo r what p ro je c ts ?

Answ er: The FY I98O p ro je c ts fo r which th e se rv ic es hav e 

de term ined to be in th e econ omic in te r e s t,o f th e U.S . to fund 

d ir e c tly are as fo llow s:

Army $ 6.8 m il li on

A ir Fo rce 8.2 m il li o n

Q ue st io n: Do o th er NATO members als o make u n ila te r a l ex pe nd itu re s which are d ir e c tl y r e la te d to th e ir 'NATO miss ion?

Answ er: Yes. For in st an ce th e F ed er al Re pu blic o f Germany 

re c e n tl y fina nce d a la rg e pro gra m of low le v e l p ro te c ti o n ra dars 

in th e e a ste rn p o rt io n o f th e co untr y.

OIL SUPPLIES

Q ue st io n: In vie w o f th e o i l problem s which have pl ag ue d th e 

wes t dur in g th e p ast few y e a rs, ha s NATO made ad eq ua te pro vis io n 

in term s o f f a c i l i t i e s and su ppli es fo r th e o i l i t needs or would 

nee d in a c r is is ?

Answer: NATO ha s re co gn iz ed th e c ru c ia l re qu irem en t fo r o il 

and th e LTDP ad dr es se s th e st ora ge and re su ppl y pr ob lems. In th e 

newly cre ate d re in fo rc em en t su pp or t ca te gor y ar e in cl uded f a c i l i ­

t i e s fo r th e st ora ge o f th is a d d it io n a l re qu irem en t.

FY 1979 SUPPLEMENTAL FOR NATO

The FY 1979 su pp le m en tal re q u est which accompanied th e bu dg et 

in cl ud ed $4 6.2 m il li o n to o f fs e t th e impact o f cu rr en cy re v alu ati o n on th e In fra str u c tu re pro gra m. I un de rs ta nd th a t th e su pp le ­

m en tal is be in g, ha s bee n re v is e d , and th a t th e $46 m il li o n i s no 

lo nger re quest ed .
132

Que stio n: Is th e re , or i s th e re n o t, a nee d fo r an a d d it io n a l 

$1+6.2 m il li o n in or de r to ac co mplish th e pro gra m app rov ed w it hin 

th e ap pro pri at ed $90 m il li on le vel ?

Answer: Yes th ere is a need fo r a d d it io n a l fu nd s. The $1+6.2 

m il li on i n i t i a l l y pr ov id ed fo r FY 1979* $3 ^.9 m il li o n o f th e

$1+6.2 m il li o n re quest ed was re quir ed to co ve r th e impact of 

cu rren cy re v alu ati o n on obli gate d bal an ce s outs ta ndin g un de r th e 

M il it ary C onst ru ction, Army ap p ro p ri ati o n . These w ill hav e to be 

li q u id ate d a t cu rr en cy ra te s s u b s ta n ti a ll y hig her th an th ose in 

e ffe c t when th e o b li g ati o n s were i n i t i a l l y oc cu rr ed . The ba la nc e 

of th e i n i t i a l re q u e st, $11.3 m il li o n , was re quest ed un der M il ita ry C onst ru ct io n, Defense Age nc ies, and re pre se nte d a re p ric in g 

o f th e $90 m il li o n al re ad y approved to r e f le c t th e In fra str u c tu re 

Accounting U ni t (IAU) ra te in e f f e c t in th e f a l l o f FY 197 8, th e 

tim e of p re p ara ti o n of th e su pp le m en tal esti m ate . I would li k e 

to poin t ou t th a t sin ce- th e i n i t i a l su pp le m en tal es ti m ate s were 

pre par ed , we have su ff ere d an oth er ro ug hl y 6 per cen t lo ss in 

d o ll a r pu rc ha sing power.

Que stion: Why is th e re quest now be in g withdr awn? How can ou t 

commitments be met othe rw ise ?

Answer: The dec is io n as to th e f in a l co nte nt o f th e re v is ed 

supp lemen tal re quest was an ex trem ely d if f i c u lt on e. I t was 

in fl uen ce d by se v era l fa c to rs .

1. The fa c to r dri vin g th e d ecis io n to re v is e th e FY 1979 

su pp lemen tal was th e te rm in at io n of th e Ir an ia n FMS pro gra m. I t 

was de term ined th a t th e opport unit y fo r th e U.S . to obta in f i r s t 

li n e m il it a ry equ ipm ent a t ver y fa vora ble p ri ce s sh ou ld not be 

fo re go ne . Th is took in to ac co un t th a t th ese ite ms co uld be e ffe c ­

ti v e ly ap pli ed to U.S . fo rc e and in vento ry re qu irem en ts ,a nd th a t 

we co ul d av oid a fu tu re cost im pa ct fo r a U.S. buy which would 

ot he rw is e r e s u lt from th e te rm in at ed s a le s .

2. Each o f th e ite ms in th e i n i t i a l su pp lemen tal is s t i l l 

co nsi de re d im po rtan t and w ell ju s t if i e d .

3. I t was determ ined th a t a lte rn a tiv e methods sh ou ld be 

soug ht to s a tis f y th e needs dele te d from th e o rig in a l re q u e st. We 

are cu rr e n tl y an al yz in g a lte rn a tiv e fu nd in g so ur ce s to meet th e 

tim e se n sit iv e In fra str u c tu re re qui re m en t. Under consid era ti on ar e 

d efe rr in g o f p ro je c ts and rep rog ram ming fun ds to th e In fra str u c tu re 

ac co un t.
133

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator Huddleston. Prime Minister Begin is across the way. I 

would like to go over and find out what is going on in the Mideast.

Mr. L oveland. I hope he will be as good as he was on “Meet The 

Press.”

Senator Huddleston. He will have a strange kind of audience 

with all the Senators present.

Thank you very much for your appearance and your presentations. You have been very helpful and thorough. We appreciate it 

very much.

Mr. F liakas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Whereupon, at 4:27 p.m., Monday, March 5, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

MILITARY CON STR UCTIO N APPRO PRIATION S 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980

FRIDAY, MARC H 9, 1979

U.S. Senate,

Subcommittee of the C ommittee on Appro priations,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 2:15 p.m. in room 1223, Everett McKinley 

Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Walter D. Huddleston (chairman) 

presiding.

Present: Senators Huddleston and Stevens.

DEP ART MENT OF DEFEN SE

Office of the Secretary of D efen se

STA TEM ENT OF PERRY J. FLIAKAS, DEP UTY ASSISTA NT SECRETARY OF 

DEFENSE

ACCOMPANIE D BY:

T. C. PINCKNEY, BRIGADIER GENERAL, USAF, DIRECTOR, EAST ASIA 

AND PACIFIC REG ION, OFF ICE OF TH E ASSISTAN T SECRETARY OF 

DEFENS E FOR INTE RNA TIONAL SEC URITY AFFAIRS

PH ILIP E. BARRINGER, DIR ECT OR, FOREIGN MILITARY RIGH TS 

AFFAIRS, Oi l ICE OF THE ASSISTA NT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR 

INTERN ATIO NAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

Defense Intelligence Agency

STATEM ENT OF T. JAM ES MUR PHY, SEN IOR INTELLIGEN CE RESEARCH 

SPECIALIST

ACCOMPANIED BY ALAN M. MAC DOUGALL, SEN IOR INTELL IGENCE 

RESEARCH SPEC IALIST

Department of the Army

STATEM ENT OF WILLIAM E. READ, BRIG ADIE R GENERAL, USA, ASSISTANT 

CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

ACCOMPANIED BY RODERICK D. RENICK, BRIGADIER GENERAL, USA, 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OPERATION S AND READ INESS DIRECT ORA TE, 

DEPUTY’ CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERA TIONS AND PLANS

(135)
136

Department of the Navy

STATMENT OF W. M. ZOBEL, REAR ADMIRAL, ESN, VICE COMMANDER, 

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND

ACCOMPANIED BY:

P. F. CARTER, JR., REAR ADMIRAL, ESN, DEPETY DIRECTOR, 

STRATEGY, PLANS AND POLICY DIVISION, OFFICE OF DEPTY CHIEF 

OF NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR PLANS, POLICY AND OPERATIONS

E. C. CHEATHAM, BRIGADIER GENERAL, ESM C, DIRECTOR, FACILITIES 

AND SERVICES DIVISION, OFFICE, DEPTY CHIEF FOR

INSTALLATIONS AND LOG ISTICS

WILLIA M WEISE, BRIGADIER GENERAL, ESM C, DIRECTOR OF 

OPERATIONS FOR PLANS AND POLICIES, IIEAD QEAR TERS, ENITED 

STATES MARINE CORPS

Department of the Air Force

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. GILBERT, MAJOR GENERAL, USAF, DIRECTOR 

OF ENGINEERING AND SERVICES OFFICE OF THE DEPET Y CHIEF OF 

STAFF, LOGIS TICS AND ENGINEERING

ACCOMP ANIED BY:

DARRYL E. TRIPP, MAJO R GENERAL, ESAF, DEP ETY DIREC TOR OF 

PLANS, OFFICE OF THE DEPETY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS, 

PLANS AND READINESS

WILLIAM FAES T, LT. COLON EL, ESAF, DIRECTORAT E OF PROG RAMS

Defense Agencies

STAT EME NT OF WILLIAM F. DELANEY, CHIEF O F LOGISTIC S DIVISION, 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS SCH OOL S

ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN F. BREWER, JR., COLO NEL ESA, STAFF 

DIRECTOR, INSTALLATIONS AND SERVICES DEFENSE LOGIS TICS 

AGENCY

DEFENSE POSTURE IN PACIFIC AREA

Se nat or H uddle st o n . T h e su bc om m itte e w ill co m e to or de r.

W e arc m ee ting to da y to re ce iv e te st im on y on de fe nse po st ur e in the

Pac ific an d re lated co ns tr uc tion re qu irem en ts . In fis ca l ye ar 1980 , 

al m os t $150 m ill io n is b ei n g re qu es te d fo r co ns tr uct io n at m ili ta ry 

fa ci lities w hi ch sp an a va st ge og ra ph ic area: Fro m Aust ra lia to K ore a 

an d ea st to A la sk a an d H aw aii.

In or der for the su bco m m itte e to pr op er ly ev al uat e th e b udge t 

re qu es t, it is fir st ne ce ss ar y to ga in a fir m er ap pr ec ia tion o f the 

per ce iv ed th re at an d o f th e m an ner in w hic h we are pr ep ar ed to 

re sp on d. W e sh all ad dr es s so m e o f th es e br oa de r qu es tion s thi s 

af te rn oo n.

O ur pr in ci pa l witn es s is, ag ain, the Hon . Pe rry J. Fliak as , D ep uty 

Ass ista nt Se cr et ar y o f D ef ense fo r In stal la tion s an d H ou sing , 

ac co m pan ie d by re pr es en ta tive s o f the D ef ense In te llig en ce A gen cy an d 

th e m ilitar y de pa rtm en ts.
137

Since both the thre at analysis and subseque nt questioning will touch 

upon classified areas, most of today’s session will have to be in closed 

session. A complete and unclassified version of the proceedings will, of 

course, be published at a later date.

We will remain in open session for the moment to receive Mr. 

Fliakas’ open ing statement.

Mr. Secretary?

Mr. Fliakas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to be here at your request to discuss the Dep artm ent of 

Defense military construction program for fiscal year 1980 in the Pacific 

area, and to respo nd to such questions as the committee may have. 

Accompanying me are witnesses from the military services and defense 

agencies who arc prepared to furnish such additiona l information as 

may be requ ired with respect to the individual projects programed for 

their respective military departments.

In summary, the Dep artm ent of Defense program in the Pacific is 

$149,155,000 or nearly 4 percent of the total fiscal year 1980 requ est 

This includes $45.8 million in Alaska, $33.2 million in Korea, $23.8 

million in Japan, $20.6 million in Hawaii, $11.4 million at Wake Island, 

$4.8 million in Guam, $3.9 million in Midway Island, $2.9 million at 

Kwajalein, $2.5 million in Australia, and $.4 million in the Republic of 

the Philippines.

On pages 5 through 8 of my stateme nt is a complete listing of all 

major and minor construction projects at the specified location that I 

mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, tha t completes a very highly synopsized summary of 

the construction program for the specific regions, and we are prepar ed 

to respond to your questions or go into executive session or closed 

session as you may wish.

Senator Huddleston. One question I think we can handle in open 

session relates to the Army’s progra m in Korea. It includes $3.2 million 

to replace a milk plant at Camp Baker.

As I recall, this is the second or third year running that you have 

requested funding for this plant. The price keeps going up. Could you 

elaborate on this requirem ent and address some of the concerns tha t 

have been raised by other committees in the past?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. You are quite rig ht It is a 

second requ est for this project.

We consider it well justified and required, not only to serve our 

servicemen, bu t also because of health and sanitary conditions in Korea. 

I would like to ask General Read to give you the specifics of the 

requirement.

General Read. Yes, sir.

prepared statement

The statement of Brig. Gen. William E. Read, Assistant Chief of 

Engineers, Dep artm ent o f the Army follows:
138

tatement of Brig. Gen. Wil lia m E. Read

Mr. Chairman and members o f the committee: I am Brig. Gen. Willia m E. Read, 

Assistant Ch ief of Engineers, Office of the Ch ief o f Engineers, Department o f the 

Army.

I am pleased to appear before this committee to present the Pacific portion o f the 

Department of the Army's annual "M ilitary Construction” appropriation request.

Of tine S722.300.000 in total obligational authority we are requesting in the fiscal year 

1980 program, S18.650.000 is for construction in the Pacific. Some S5,590,000 of tha t is 

for projects in Alaska, $2,750,000 for Hawaii, S2,700,000 fo r Okinawa, $4,610,000 for 

Korea and S2,900,000 for Kwa jalcin. The request contains 12 projects of which six are 

specified location min or projects.

iscal Year 1980 MCA Program High lig hts for the Pacific 

Alaska

The largest project for Alaska is the modernization of a dining facility and billet 

spaces for 236 personnel at Fort Richardson for S4,450,000. The project would bring 

the two existing buildings up to current adequacy standards for the unaccompanied 

enlisted personnel.

The second major construction project in Alaska is the provision o f adequate security 

at the ammunition magazine at Fo rt Grecly for S820.000. This magazine is adjacent to 

the Alyeska oil pipeline and the corridor selected for the Alaska-Canada gas pipeline. 

The project will provide adequate physical security for the ammunition storage area.

Haw aii

The Project for Hawaii is the construction o f a 38 dental treatment room clin ic to 

replace inadequate facilities which were constructed in 1928-29. The project, costing 

S2,750,000, will provide adequate facilities for utilitie s and improved efficiency for the 

practitioners.

Okina wa

The $2,700,000 request is to replace six above ground badly deteriorated petroleum 

storage tanks with three below ground tanks at Kuwae Tank Farm. The existing tanks 

are severely corroded making the tanks susceptible to leaking or rupture.

orea

The major project requested for Korea is the construction of a milk plan t for 

S3,150,000. The existing milk reconstituting plant is labor intensive, deteriorated, 

unsanitary, and uneconomically repairable. The Korean dairy industry does not meet 

health requirements for providing required projects. To fly milk products in from other 

sources in the Pacific is estimated as costing over $200,000 per month. The Korean 

Government has indicated it is unable to bu ild the plant and Korean law will not 

perm it an U.S. firm to construct a private planL The project is required to provide 

milk products which meet health requirement for our forces in Korea.

wa jalein

This project to resize the modernize range facilities at Kwajalein Missile Range, 

Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands, for S2,900,000 will provide required facilities for this 

national missile range.

um mar y

In summary, our fiscal year 1980 military construction program for the Pacific is 

designed to provide essential facilities for mission requirements and adequate support 

for United States forces.
139

I will be pleased to answer any questions the com mittee may have or to see that 

answers are provided.

Gen eral Read. As indicated, it is the second, not the third year, and, 

in fact, the project has gone up in size from $1,980,000 to $3,150,000 

and the requirem ent is to replace a deteriorated, unsanitary and 

uneconomically repairable facility.

'Ehe reasons that it has gone up are severalfold. One is the infla tion 

that we have experienced over there. The second one is that we had 

antic ipated getting some 40,000 cubic yards of fill from the school 

across the stree t that we were going to move over by troop labor, and 

that subsequently has been withdrawn.

Then we identified some other minor addition al requirements to the 

facility.

You asked about other concerns that people have had on this. I 

might address that one concern that has been expressed is why we 

cannot get the milk products from a Korean source. The basic reason is 

that the dairy herds that supply raw milk for each facility jus t do not 

meet our health standards. Another concern tha t has been expressed is 

why it could not be built by the Koreans or by a U.S. firm over there. 

We have received correspondence by the Koreans in which they 

indicated that they could not build it and that they would not permit it 

to be built and ope rated by the Uni ted States or another foreign 

country.

Senator Huddleston . W ould this serve jus t your military forces?

Gen eral Read. No, sir, it will serve all of the dependents, of course, 

of the military and the State Dep artm ent people and all the people over 

there who would be authorized.

Senator Huddleston . I am also curious about the $3.3 million 

proposed for a high school annex at Seoul. I was und er the impression 

that Korea was basically an unaccompanie d tour. How many 

dependents do you have there?

Mr. Fliakas. Mr. Chairman, you are basically correct with regard to 

the short tours for the comb at-type forces, bu t there are quite a few 

logistic and support troops, communicatio ns and intelligence, for which 

longer terms are desired in ord er to have more continuity on the job 

and to avoid disruption of operations.

So there are about 800 students, as I und erstand it, attending high 

school in Seoul. I do not have a complete list of the num bers o f 

dependents on authorized accompanied tours, but I will provide that 

for the record.

Senator Huddleston . Would you provide that for the record the 

noncommand sponsored dependents that contribute to this need?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir.

We do, of course, discourage the noncomman d-sponsored families; as 

you know they do show up and, on their own expense, and while they 

are considered eligible for school, it is after the other requirements have 

been met. It is on a space-available basis that we make space in the 

schools available to them.
140

I will provide also some num bers for the record on th at 

Senator Huddleston. All right.

[The inform ation follows:]

DOD Dependents in Korea

The following table reflects the num ber of DOD dep end ents in Korea in January, 

1979. About 80 percent of these dep end ent reside in the Seoul area. Thus we estimate 

that over 4,000 comm and spon sored dependents provide the base for the Seoul DOD 

dependents school pop ulation. About 800 are high school students. No noncomm and 

sponsored depe nden ts have been adm itted to DO D schools in Seoul since March, 1975. 

The project for the school is based solely on the needs for adeq uate facilities for 

comm and sponsored high school age depen dents.

DOD Depende nts in Korea—Janua ry 1979

Com man d Noncommand 

sponsored sponsored

Arm y.................................................................................................

Navy..................................................................................................

Air For ce .........................................................................................

Marine Co rps..................................................................................

To tal......................................................................................

3,751

232

983

63.......

6,756

10

2,300

5,029 9,066

Source: Military Services, March 1979.

Senator Huddleston. I believe from this point on we will be 

discussing classified information. Wit hout objection, then, the balance 

of today’s hearings will be cond ucted in executive session. Those in 

attendance who do not have a Depar tment of Defense security 

clearance will be asked to leave at this point. Staff will check to see that 

this occurs.

Mr. Stevens. I would like to pu t on the record that I conc ur in the 

chairman’s motion.

[Whereupon, at 2:25 the subco mmittee recessed, to reconvene in 

closed session.]
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

he su bco m m itte e m et in ex ec uti ve session at 2:25 p. m . in ro om 

1223, E ve re tt M cK in le y D ir ks en O ff ic e Bui ld in g, H on. W alt er 

H ud dl es to n (c ha ir m an ) pr es id in g.

Pr es en t: Se na to rs H ud dl es to n, Sa sser, and Stev en s.

DEP ART MENT OF DEFEN SE

Office of the Secretary of Defense

STATEMENT OF PERRY J. FLIAKAS, DEPU TY ASSISTANT SECRETAR Y OF 

DEFENSE

ACCOMPANIED BY:

T. C. PINCKNEY, BRIGADIER GENERAL, USAF, DIRECTOR, EAST ASIA 

AND PACIFIC REGION, OFFICE OF THE ASSIS TANT SECRETAR Y OF 

DEFENSE FOR INTERNATIONAL SECU RITY AFFAIRS

PHILIP E. BARRINGER, DIRECTOR, FOREIGN MILITARY RIGHTS 

AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

Defense Intelligence Agency

STATEMENT OF T. JAMES MURPHY, III, SENIOR INTELLIGENCE RESEAR CH 

SPECIALIST

ACCOMPANIED BY ALAN M. MAC DOUGALL, SENIOR INTELLIGENCE 

RESEARCH SPECIALIST

Department of the Army

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. READ, BRIGADIER GENERAL, USA, ASSISTA NT 

CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

ACCOMP ANIED BY RODERICK D. RENICK, BRIGADIER GENERAL, USA, 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS AND READINESS DIRECTORAT E, 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAF F FOR OPER ATIONS AND PLANS

Department of the Navy

STATEMENT OF W. M. ZOBEL, REAR ADMIRAL, USN, VICE COMM ANDER, 

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND

ACCOMPANIED BY:

P. F. CARTER, JR., REAR ADMIRAL, USN, DEPU TY DIRECTOR, 

STRATEGY, PLANS AND POLICY DIVISION. OFFICE OF DEPUTY CHIEF 

OF NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR PLANS, POLICY AND OPERATIONS

E C. CHEATHAM, BRIGADIER GENERAL, USMC, DIRECTOR, FACILITIES 

AND SERVICES DIVISION, OFFICE, DEPU TY CHIEF FOR 

INSTALLA TION S AND LOGISTICS

(14D

U l- 638 0 - 7 9 - 1 0
142

WILLIAM WEISE, BRIGADIER GENERAL, L’SMC, DIRECTOR OF 

OPERAT ION S FOR PLANS AND POL ICIES, HEA DQUARTERS UNITED 

STATES MARINE CORPS

Departmen t of the Air Force

STA TEM ENT OF WILLIAM I). GILBER T, MAJOR GENERAL, USAF, DIRECTOR 

OF ENGINEERING AND SERVICES CHIEF OF STAFF, LOG ISTICS AND 

ENGINEER ING

ACCOMPANIED BY:

DARRYL E. TRIPP, MAJOR GENERAL, USAF , DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF 

PLANS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPER ATIO NS, 

PLANS AND READ INESS

WILLIAM FAUST, LT. COL ONE L, USAF, DIRECTORA TE OF PROGRAMS 

Defense Agencies

STATEM ENT OF WILLIAM F. DELANEY, CHIEF OF LOG ISTICS DIVISION, 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEP END ENTS SCHO OLS

ACCOMPANIED BY JO HN F. BREWER, JR., COL ONE L, USA, STAFF 

DIRECTOR

Senator Huddleston. The subcomfnittee will be in order.

Mr. Fliakas. Each of the Departments, sir, will vouch for their 

representatives that arc here.

I would like to introduce Mr. Murphy, ou r first witness, from the 

Defense Intelligence Agency.

Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, Senator Stevens, good afternoon. We 

have three short briefings this afternoon dealing with Soviet and 

Korean military developments in Asia.

The first will briefly review Soviet force deployments in the Far East, 

and the second will discuss Soviet naval Indian Ocean operations. Mr. 

MacDougall will conclude with a summary of the North Korean/South 

Korean military balance.

As you are aware, during the past decade, the Soviet Union has 

undertaken an unp rece dented military modernization program. This 

effort has touched all Soviet forces and involves the introduction of, 

and increased reliance on, new weapons, This modernization program is 

clearly evident in Soviet forces in Asia.

Soviet ground forces in Asia comprise some [deleted] percent, or 

[deleted] troops, of the total Soviet ground force strength. Although 

they presently are not as well-equipped as the divisions deployed 

forward in Eastern Europe, the equipment levels and quality in Asia are 

nevertheless formidable and growing.

There are [deleted] divisions in Asia, that is, from [deleted] as shown 

here. The build up of Soviet ground forces in Asia began in 1965 

following clashes with China over ideology, national interests, and 

Chi na’s deto nation of its first atomic device.

The quantitative buildup of ground forces from 1965 to 1978 is 

depicted here.
143

In 1965. the Soviets had [deleted] combat divisions in the area. The 

magnitude of the build up is readily apparen t when forces of today are 

compared with those of only a decade ago, as shown here.

During the past several years, die Soviets have strengthened their 

ground forces by redep loyment of existing units, creation of new units, 

and qualitative force improvements.

Ground force equipment upgrading is progressing at a steady rate. 

[Deleted.]

As far as future trends are concerned, the Soviets will continue the 

steady modernization of their ground forces in Asia for the next several 

years. [Deleted.]

I would now like to describe the variety of air assets available to the 

Soviets in Asia. [Deleted.]

About [deleted] percent of the total Soviet bom ber force is assigned 

to bases in the [deleted] bomber corps. The num ber has not changed 

appreciably since the early 1960’s. Some [deleted] Badgers constitute the 

primary peripheral strike force. The long-range [deleted] aircraft 

probably have primary missions of die striking the [deleted].

Tliis map shows long-range aviation bases [deleted].

The Backfire can carry' bombs and air-to-surface missiles. It is a 

versatile aircraft capable of low-altitude, high-subsonic speed 

penetration as well as high-altitude supersonic dash. Shown here is the 

Backfire’s radius of operation [deleted].

In the past 10 years, significant changes have occu rred in Soviet 

tactical aviation. Although the quan tity of aircraft nationwide has 

increased only [deleted] percent durin g the period, the quality has 

improved enormously.

IBc changes in Asia [deleted].

The mission of Soviet aviation or air defense, or APVO, is to defe nd 

the homeland against potential air threats. APVO is equipped 

nationwide with more than [deleted] interceptors, of which about 

[deleted] percent are located in Asia [deleted]. Well over [deleted] the 

APVO forces in this region are made up of [deleted] interceptors 

[deleted].

The navy today is a major elem ent of Soviet power. Since 1959, this 

navy has changed dramatically from primarily a coastal defense force to 

one of the most powerful navies ever assembled. Soviet naval policy 

and strategy are influenced as much by geography as by the threat of 

Moscow's perceived enemies. This factor has mandated the planning 

for, and construction of, four widely separated and self-contained fleets.

The stren gth and disposition of th e naval forces in all fleet areas are 

presented here. Each fleet possesses a strong feature [deleted.]

Ih c subm arine force is the most powerful naval strike force available 

to the Soviets. It has three missions: Strategic strike, to counter the 

threat from western carriers, and to interdict enemy sea lines of 

communication. [Deleted.] Delia class and [deleted] Yankee class 

ballistic missile submarines are assigned to the Pacific fleet. The very 

long range of the missiles on board perm it the Delia to strike [deleted] 

other submarines in the Pacific carry missiles with a range of [deleted] 

nautical miles.
144

Although the ballistic missile force gets the most attention, the major 

portion of the [deleted] subm arine fleet in the Pacific consists of 

[deleted] submarines. About [deleted] of these are diesel powered. 

However, there is a tren d toward conversion to nuclear power, [deleted].

Senator Stevens. W hat is the range of Charlie?

Mr. Murphy . What is the range?

LCDR Starr. [Deleted.]

The introduction of an [deleted] class subs will extend this range to 

about 60 nautical miles.

Senator Huddleston. It is 2,600 nautical miles there, it was 2,400 

before. What is the difference?

[The information follows:]

Ran ge oi 7

 Soviet Bac kf ire Bombe r

Mr. Chairman, the information requested is classified. I will provide a separate 

answer to the committee.

Senator Stevens. You say you think they are going to retire the 

[deleted].

Mr. Murphy . I think eventually they will, sir. Most of the [deleted] 

arc 20 years old or older. I believe production ceased on the [deleted]. 

Like our B-52 force, they have jus t been upgrading the original 

airframes over the years.

Senator Stevens. What do they call it? What is it, the range there? 

What is the speed?

[The information follows:]

Mr. Chairman, the information requested is classified. I will provide a separate 

answer to the committee.

Senator Stevens. Tha t shows a greater range than the [deleted].

Mr. Murphy . Yes, sir. The [deleted] is primarily an interm ediate 

range aircraft.

Senator Stevens. Thank you.

Mr. Murphy . A major improvement in Soviet naval air capabilities is 

the Backfire. In naval air, the Backfire is assessed to have [deleted] an 

antiship role using standoff air-to-surface missies. [Deleted.]

The most recent addition to the Soviet arsenal of surface warships is 

the Kiev class aircraft carrier. This ship, the first of which is based in 

the [deleted] fleet, carries both the Forg er vertical takeoff and landing 

figh ter/ bom ber as well as antisubmarine warfare helicopters. We expect 

that one of the two operational units of the Kiev class will join the 

[deleted].

Now, let’s finish up with a short discussion of the missile forces.

Senator Huddleston. Is that nuclear?

Mr. Murphy . N o sir, it is not. There are no nuclear powered combat 

surface warships in the Soviet fleet.

Senator Stevens. It carries aircraft, does it?

Mr. Murphy . Yes, sir. The normal max on the Kiev, I believe, is 

[deleted] Forger VTOL aircraft and [deleted] Horm one antisubmarine 

helicopters.
145

Senator Stevens. Thank you.

Mr. Murphy. Soviet land-based intercontinental ballistic missile 

deployment has grown steadily from abou t [deleted] launchers in 1968 

to a present force level of about [deleted] at the locations shown. The 

Soviets have now reached the [deleted] point in the deployment of four 

new missiles—the SS—16, 17, 18 and 19. Currently, there are abo ut 

[deleted] of these new missiles in the operational force. Conversion of 

older missiles to these new systems is continuing and we expect that by 

the end of 1980 the Soviets will have deployed about [deleted].

Additionally, the Soviets have mod ernized [deleted] of their older 

missiles, primarily through improvements in accuracy [deleted].

Although all Soviet intercontinental missiles can be fired against 

Asian and Pacific targets, we believe that less than [deleted].

Deployment of the medium and interm ediate range missile force 

began abou t 1959. In the past couple of years the older comp onents of 

the force, the SS-4 and the SS-5, have been supplem ented by a new 

mobile interm ediate range weapon, the SS-20. This missile features 

three reentry vehicles and is much more accurate than the older 

systems. Its mobility enhances survivability [deleted],

A total of about [deleted] launchers are currently deployed [deleted].

Despite the brevity of this review, I believe it can be seen that the 

Soviet Gov ernm ent has comm itted an extraordinary proportion of the 

nation's resources to the upgrading of its forces in Asia. The Soviet 

force posture clearly reflects the Soviet realization tha t they must plan 

for the possibility of a simultaneous war against NATO in the West and 

against China and the United States and its allies in the East.

Are there any questions?

Senator Huddleston. You may continue.

Mr. Murphy. The second short briefing will concern itself with Soviet 

naval Indian Ocean operations. The briefing will provide an overview 

[deleted].

The Soviet Navy has maintained a continuous presence in the Indian 

Ocean since 1968. During the past decade, this presence has grown 

from a few ships [deleted].

Tliis vugraph depicts the Soviet Indian Ocean ship days during the 

past decade and—excluding special operations—reflects the relative 

stability of force levels since 1972.

[Deleted.]

Since the reopenin g of the Suez Canal in June, 1975, this strategic 

waterway has been used by the Soviet Navy primarily for the [deleted] 

purposes shown on this graphic. Despite the Black Sea fleet's much 

shorter lines of communication to the Indian Ocean, the Suez Canal, 

until the 1978 Ethiopian-Somali War had been utilized only sparingly 

for Indian Ocean logistic and com batant ship supp ort. With the 

conclusion of that war, Soviet comb atan t and auxiliary ship usage of the 

Canal returned to approximately its prewar level.

The Soviet navy conducts por t visits thro ugh out the Indian Ocean 

area. In addition to the political natu re o f such visits, they also afford 

the Soviets the opportunity for ship crew rest, provisions, water and, in
146

some instances, fuel resupply. The Soviets have also established 

[deleted].

An Indian Ocean naval presence allows the Soviets to support their 

merchant, fishing, oceanographic and space operations there. It also 

enables the Soviets to improve techniques of afloat support, and to 

operate ships, submarines, and their associated weapons and sensor 

systems in a tropical environment.

In conclusion, the Soviet Indian Ocean squadron is a rather modest 

naval force with limited capabilities. [Deleted.]

Sir, if there are no questions, I will turn the third briefing over to 

Mr. MacDougall.

Senator H uddleston . Very well.

Mr. MacDougall. We believe the most effective way to present the 

threat in Korea is to com pare the military capabilities of North Korea 

to those of the Republic of Korea. In late January, the Defense 

Intelligence Agency com pleted a new assessment of the military forces 

of both Koreas. This assessment served as the DI A input into an 

intelligence communitywide reassessment, which is presently taking 

place.

I would like to present to the committee the results of our January 

study, and give you, where appropriate , the results of furth er research 

which has taken place since then. The numb ers on the slides will be 

those which we published in January. I will try to update them with 

our current figures, as of this morning, as we go along.

Before I review for you the more significant elem ents of our new 

comparisons, I must m ake these points:

The differences in estimates between 1978 and 1979 result largely 

from intensive retrospective rcanalysis, not from a surge in North Korea 

combat capabilities which has taken place in that year.

[Deleted.]

In our comparitive analysis, we consider only North and South 

Korean forces. No weight is given to U.S. combat forces involvement in 

the comparison.

The major conclusions and judg ments of our 1979 comparative 

analysis are as follows.

[Deleted.]

The increase in North Korean combat power is n ot a surge which has 

taken place in the last year or two, bu t the result of a program of 

improvements sustained since at least 1970. Our current intensive 

analysis has increased our earlier appreciation of the extent of these 

improvements.

[Deleted.]

Before I address the components of the combat balance, I would like 

to review the question of uncertainties as reflected in our study.

[Deleted.]

The next slide, please.

[Deleted.]

May I have the last slide back, please?
147

[Deleted.]

'Hie next slide, please.

[Deleted.]

IT e next slide, please.

This slide depicts growth in terms of tanks. These figures represen t 

our best estimate at the moment.

The figure for South Korea is a bit high. That represents all the tanks 

there are in South Korea. There is a program of upgrading underway 

[deleted].

The next slide, please.

This is the num ber for armored personnel carriers.

The next slide, please.

Mr. Chairma n, we believe there ar e about [deleted] artillery pieces in 

the North Korean army at the moment, rather than the [deleted] given 

for the end of 1978.

The next slide, please.

We believe there arc abou t [deleted] multiple rocket launchers. There 

are no multiple rocket launchers in the South Korean Army, other than 

a few experimental models; none in the field.

ITe next slide, please.

[Deleted.]

While the South has substantially improved the quality of its jet 

combat aircraft inventory, the North retains its [deleted] numerical 

advantage as shown here.

[Deleted.]

Given the qualitative improvement experienced by the South Korean 

Air Force, the air balance is the one area in which the ROK has been 

[deleted].

The next slide, please.

Naval and marine personnel totals—by themselves—arc somew hat 

misleading. While the South Korean figures include the Republic of 

Korean Naval Marines, a ground combat element that was already 

addressed on the previous slides, [deleted].

Senator Huddleston. D o they make their own?

Mr. MacDougall. Yes, sir. [Deleted.]

Tha t concludes my briefing.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you very much.

Do we have another briefing?

Mr. Fliakas. No, sir. If you would have any questions for the 

intelligence witnesses, I would appreciate it if you would take them up 

now so that I could dismiss them and we can go into our other areas, 

or they can stay, obviously.

Senator Huddleston. Do you see anything on the horizon at present 

that is going to slow down the increase in Soviet capability we face? 

Have they leveled off or have they been stable in recent weeks, or 

whatever time frame you might use to judg e a trend?

Mr. Murphy. We do not have any graphs, sir, tha t would indicate 

either a ruble-dollar figure or, right now, a gross figure for pieces of 

equipment of how the trend has been going, whether it has leveled of f 

or increased in recent months.
148

Impressions we have are that currently in many of the major fields 

of equipm ent modernization there has not been in, say, the past year, a 

leveling off. If it has leveled off in one area, perhaps in Euro pe in 

certain types of equipment as those new pieces come in, it has picked 

up in areas such as Asia which formerly, traditionally, were equippe d 

with older obsolescent pieces. They are now turning their attention, we 

believe, to some of the areas where they do have older pieces in the 

inventory and expect to modernize them.

It is a very difficult question to answer because the economic burden, 

if we look at it from our poin t of view, must be tremendous, yet to the 

Soviets, apparently it is not. They do not have the consumer society to 

the extent tha t we do; they do not have the pop ular pressures that we 

do.

Senator H uddleston . They do not have Congress.

Mr. Murphy . To inhibit military spending. The military complex is a 

strong organization and, in many instances, is the most advanced 

technically, far ahead of many of its civilian counterparts.

Senator H uddleston. The mobile portion of this—tanks, airplanes, 

ships—are they committed to these specific areas? Is there any 

indication that this is a shifting type thing as far as deploying their 

forces?

Mr. Murphy . I am not sure I can give you a definitive answer on 

that, Mr. Chairma n. I believe, however, that for the most part they are 

not that mobile, especially for a rath er short war scenario. I do not 

believe we can expect the Soviets to make a major shift of groun d force 

equipme nt [deleted].

In certain areas that are more mobile—transport aircraft and air 

assets—we may see that, but the Soviets also have a tremendous 

amount of divisions and equ ipm ent in the interior of the U.S.S.R. in 

what we refer to as the western military districts, which are in the 

western U.S.S.R.—the Ukraine and Byelorussia.

Senator H uddleston . Senator Sasser, do you have any particular 

questions on the Defense Intelligence Agency phase of the hearing?

Senator Sasser. I might just have a couple of questions, Mr. 

Chairman.

One, you said that the latest estimates are that the North Koreans 

have [deleted] division as opposed to how many?

Mr. Mac ougall. At the mom ent, the Republic of Korea has 

[deleted] combat divisions.

Sentor Sasser. Are these divisions at the same manpower level?

Mr. Mac ougall. If I may correct my remarks, perhaps. They have 

[deleted] infantry divisions. They also have [deleted] armored divisions, 

so the total combat divisions in North Korea, that is to say, the total 

divisions or brigades or the equivalent of divisions and brigades, is 

[deleted].

The manning level of those units is approximately the same. The 

South Korean divisions have about 13,000 men when they are fully 

manned. The North Kore an divisions, we estimate, to be at about 

[deleted].
149

A brigade is slightly smaller titan a division, and these things we are 

describing as being the equivalents, arc groups of forces [deleted].

Sena tor Sasser . Y ou may have covered this before I got here, Mr. 

Chairman. Do you have a projection as to the duratio n of the assistance 

of the Rep ublic of Korea if there were an offensive by the North 

Koreans? How long would it last?

Mr. MacDougall. [Deleted.]

As you know, the populatio n of Sou th Korea is a bout twice what the 

population of No rth Korea is and the economy is stronger and so forth, 

[deleted].

Sena tor Sasser . Y ou said tha t you had [deleted]. Why?

It appears to me that it would be relatively easy to get [deleted].

Mr. MacDougall. We do not have any troub le with [deleted].

Senator Sasser . Why is that, out of curiosity?

Mr. MacDougall. [Deleted.]

Senator Sasser . Here again, if I am covering something tha t was 

already covered, I will ask it later, bu t I gather, looking at your graphs, 

that die buildup began somewhere around [deleted].

Mr. MacDougall. [Deleted.]

Senator Sasser . Does the intelligence comm unity have a theory as to 

why this buildup took place?

Mr. MacDougall. If I may, sir, I have an answer to you r question 

prepared, but I would like to c on sult

[Deleted.]

Senator Sasser. I am jus t curious if there is any correlation betw een 

the buildup of North Korean armed forces and the estra ngem ent tha t 

has deve loped between Russia and the Peop le’s Republic of China, a 

correlation there. Tha t is really the basis of the question.

Mr. MacDougall. I think there are a numb er of developm ents tha t 

have taken place since 1966 which may give us some suggestion as to 

what is going on in their minds.

Beginning in 1966 until 1970, they engaged in a substantial effort by 

infiltrating agents in South Korea to foment a revolution in South 

Korea. The agents came down thinking tha t they just have to give the 

word and the South Koreans would turn arou nd against their 

government. They began to realize tha t that was a drea dful failure, and 

that policy caused a great deal of havoc, bu t it did not cause a 

revolution or even something vaguely resembling a revolution.

At that point, they decided to change their strategy. A num ber of 

factors took place in the outside world; the Nixon doctrine is certainly 

one; the coldness between the Soviet Union and China and the 

warmness between the United States and China; events tha t have taken 

place over a several year period.

They began about 1971 to have overtures to the South with respect 

to the Red Cross talks and other political talks between the two 

governments. It seems tha t about the same time they decided tha t they 

would build up their military forces.

I think it is possible to speculate tha t in embarking on an atte mpted 

political solution they wanted to be certain tha t they maintained and 

improve d their military option.
150

[Deleted.]

How all those events tie together, 1 am afraid that I cannot tie them 

all together very well, and 1 do not know that anybody can.

Senator Sasser. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Fliakas. I was going to suggest that it might be of interest for 

Mr. MacDougall to go into the strain on the economy in North Korea 

to support this very huge effort.

Senator Huddleston. One question, before you get to that.

Has there been any response at all detected since the announced 

position of this country to withdraw from Korea?

Mr. MacDougall. I would have to confine myself, Mr. Chairman, to 

that question in terms of military response and I think the answer is 

[deleted].

Mr. Murphy . As a sidelight to tha t response, sir, it might be of 

interest to note that Nor th Korea has abo ut the same [population as 

East Germany, about 17 million people, [deleted]. East Germ any, of 

course, is the 10th ranking industrial power in the world.

Mr. MacDougall. [Deleted.]

Senator Huddleston. Where do they get their oil?

Mr. MacDougall. [Deleted.]

Senator Huddleston. If they get ready to attack, then, they just cut it 

off?

Mr. MacDougall. [Deleted.]

Senator Huddleston. Do they produce their own weapons?

Mr. MacDougall. [Deleted.]

Senator Huddleston. While that is a summ ary of the threat now, 

what are we doing to counteract it?

Mr. Fliakas. Each of the military dep artm ents have a very bri ef 

synopsis of their forces and they can expand on it as you desire.

General Renick?

General Renick. I have subm itted for the record a briefing that 

includes quite a bit of detail, bu t currently the Army has four major 

organizations in Korea. We have Headquarters, 8th U.S. Army; 

Headquarters, I Corps; Headquarters, 2d Infantry Division; and the 

38th Air Defense Brigade. These are located respectively at Yongsan, 

Camp Red Cloud, Camp Casey, and Osan Air Force Base.

However, there are approximately 110 additional sites and camps in 

Korea ranging in population from two to three man detachments to 

brigade-size installations.

We have, in Hawaii, the 25th Division minus and we have in Alaska 

at For t Richardson the 172d Infantry Brigade.

[Briefing by Brig. Gen. Roderick D. Renick, Depu ty Director, 

Operations and Readiness, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff 

Operations, Dep artm ent of the Army follows:]

[The information follows:]
15

BRIEFING BY

BRIGADI ER GENERA L RODE RICK D. RENICK

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OPERATIONS AND READ INES S

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIE F OF STAFF OPERATIO NS

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

I . Intro duct ion

Mr. Chairman, it is an hono r to appear before this comm itte e to 

discuss briefly US Arm y forces, missions, roles and weapon's system 

in the Pacific theater and Alaska.

I I . O ver vie w . — S lid e s a p p e a r a t en d o f b r i e f i n g .

Slide 1 depicts the Pacific Command (PACOM) boundari es and 

major US Army forces located in PACOM and Alaska. The command relation ­

ships with in PACO M are as depicte d on Slide 2. Major US Army forces 

assigned to Comm ande r in Chief Pacific (CINCPAC) by JCS are as depicted 

on Slide 3. Also depicted are forces (active and reserve) located in 

PACOM but not assigne d to CINCPAC by the JCS. Forces located in 

Alaska (not a pa rt of PACOM) are as shown on the bottom of Slide 3.

The mission of Eighth US Army (Korea) is shown on Slide 4. The 

missions of its subordin ate commands, I Corps ROK/US Group and 2d 

Infantry Division, are as shown on Slide 5. The Major US Weapons Systems 

present ly located in Korea are depicte d on Slide 6.

The mission o f the United Stat es Army, Japan (USARJ) is stated 

on Slide 7. The roles of Headquart ers IX Corps located in Japan is 

depic ted on Slide 8.

The US Army CINCPAC Support Grou p (USACSG), a Department o f Army 

Field Oper ating Agency, is locate d at Fort Shafter, Hawaii and their 

roles are depicte d on Slide 9. The mission of the 25th Infantry 

Divisio n station ed at Schofie ld Barracks, Hawaii is shown on Slide 10. 

The major US Army weapon s system s on Hawaii are depic ted on Slid e 11.
152

The 172d Infantry Brigade is st ationed at Ft Richardson, Alaska 

(note: Alaska is not a part of PACOM) and the br igade's mission is

as shown on Slide 12. The majo r US Army weapons systems located in 

Alaska are depicted on Slide 13.

III. Sum mary.

This conclu des my p resentation Mr. Chairman.

(T he s l i d e s f o llo w :)
U.S. ARM Y IN THE PACIFIC

X

►— 4 g

( S li d e 1)
154

PACOM COMMAND RE LA TION SH IPS

S li d e 2)

ARMY FORCES IN PACOM AND ALASKA 

ASSIG NED TO CIN CPAC

1 ARMY HEADQUARTERS - KOREA

2 CORPS HEADQUARTERS - KO REA/JAPAN

2 INFANTRY D IV IS IO N S (1 SCHEDULED FOR WITHDRAWAL DURING NEXT 4 - 5 YEARS) 

IN PACOM BUT NOT ASSIGNED TO CIN CPAC

1 DA F IE LD OPERATING AGENCY - HA WAII 

1 IX CORPS AUGMENTATION (USA R) - HA WAII/G UAM 

1 ENGINEER GROUP - KOREA

1 SIGNAL BDE - KOREA 

1 INF ANTRY BDE (ARNG) - HA WAII 

1 INFANTRY BN (USA R) - HA WAII 

CS/CS S UNI TS - KO REA/JAPAN/H AW AII

ALASKA

1 INF EDE CS/CSS UN ITS

1 AVN BN

1 ADA BN (H ER O - TO BE DE AC TIVA TE D NLT 30 SEP 79 

4 IN F BUS (SC OUT) (ARNG)

S li d e 3)
155

MISS ION - EIGH TH US ARMY

EIG HTH US ARMY

o PROV IDES FORC ES IN AC COR DAN CE WITH US/ ROK MUT UAL 

DEFENS E TREAT Y

o EXE RCIS ES OPE RAT ION AL CONTRO L OF ASS IGN ED ROK 

FOR CES A S CFC GROU ND COMP ONEN T

o PERF ORMS FUNCTION S OF A MAJ OR ARMY COMM AND

( S lid e 4)

MIS SIO NS - I CORPS ROK/US GP & 2D INF DIV

J CORPS (ROK/US) GP

OPE RAT E A COM BIN ED ROK/US CORPS HEA DQU ART ERS CAPA BLE OF CON DUCT ING 

TACTIC AL OPER ATIONS. COMM AND ALL ASSI GNE D CORPS TROO PS AND PRO VIDE 

STAFF PLANNING, CON TRO L AND SUP ERV ISI ON OF OPE RAT ION S OF A COMB INED 

ROK/US CORPS.

2D INF DI V

BE PRE PARE D TO DEF END AGA INS T A NORTH KORE AN ATT ACK BY MAI NTA INI NG 

COMBA T READY FORC ES ALONG MAJOR AVENUE S OF APPROA CH.

(S li d e 5)
156

MAJOR WEAPONS SY STEM S - KOR EA

REDEY E

VULCAN

CH APAR RA L 

IMPR OV ED HAWK

DRAGON

TOW

SHERID AN M 551 

TA NK M 50 A1

MORTAR 81MM 

MORTAR 107M M

105M M HOW ITZE R ( T )

155M M HOW ITZE R ( T ) M 1 W

8 IN HOWITZE R (S P ) 

HONEST JOH N

A H -IG (C OBRA)

(S lid e 6)

M IS S IO N - UNIT ED STA TE S ARMY, JAPAN

o COMMAND AND CONTR OL

o M A IN T A IN L O G IS T IC A L BA SE TO SUPPOR T DA WESTPAC OPERATIO NAL 

PLANS

o L O G IS T IC A L SUPPOR T FOR WESTERN P A C IF IC - A L L US, FR EE WORLD 

FO RC ES , U N IT E D NATIO N FO RC ES , AND GOVERNMENTAL AG E N C IE S , 

o A D V IS E , A S S IS T , AND L IA IS O N W IT H JA PANESE GROUND S E L F -

DEF EN SE FO RC ES .

o COORDIN ATION W IT H J O IN T AND OTHER SERVIC ES

HE AD QUA RT ER S, US EM BA SS Y, AND GOVERNM ENT OF JA PAN 

AGENCIE S (A S AUTH ORIZ ED BY C O M USJ) .

o DA REP RESENTA TION IN CO MBINE D PLA NNIN G FOR WHICH 

COMUSJ IS CHARGED.

(S lid e 7)
157

ROLES - HQ IX CORPS

o CONTING ENCY OPE RAT IO NAL PL AN NIN G DU RING PEACETIM E, 

o T A C T IC A L OP ER AT IONS PL AN NIN G AND COMMAND AND 

CONTROL IN WAR TIME.

o CAPABLE OF DEP LO YING RAPID LY TO ESTA B LIS H 

NEC ESSARY COMMAND ON A T IM ELY B A S IS .

(S lid e 8)

ROLES - USACSG

o INTE RFA CE W ITH CIN CPA C AND OTHER 

SERVIC E COMPONENTS 

o REP RESEN T ARMY IN AREAS BEYOND 

MACOM BO UN DA RIES OF JAPA N AND ROK 

o REP RESENT ARMY IN MATTERS WHICH 

TRA NSCEND MACOM BO UN DA RIES

( S lid e 9)

M IS S IO N - 25TH IN FANTRY D IV IS IO N

AS A MAJOR ELEM ENT OF THE P A C IF IC COMMAND RE SERV E, M A IN TA IN S 

A REA DIN ES S POSTURE WHICH W IL L PERM IT DEP LOY MEN T BY A IR OR 

SE A ANYWHERE IN TH E P A C IF IC TH EA TE R AND ENGAGEMENT IN GROUND 

COMBAT OR AC CO MP LIS HM EN T OF OTHER ASSI GNED M IS SIO NS RANGING 

FROM S T A B IL IZ A T IO N OP ER AT IONS TO GENERAL WAR.

( S lid e 10 )

<♦1-638 0 - 79 - 11
158

MAJOR WEAPONS SYSTEMS - HA WAII

REDEYE 

VULCAN M163 

CHAPARRAL 

DRAGON 

TOW

MORTAR 81MM 

MORTAR 107MM 

1O5MM HOW ITZER (T )

155MM HOW ITZER (T ) M114A 1 

SHERIDAN M5 51 

A H -I G (CO BRA)

Sli d e 11)

M IS SIO N - 172D INFANTRY BD E, ALASKA

o PL AN , PROVIDE FOR, AND BE PREPARED TO CONDUCT GROUND DEFENSE 

OF ALASKA.

o PROVIDE OPERATION ALLY READY RESOURCES PREPARED TO PARTIC IP ATE 

IN THE CONDUCT OF A IR DEFENSE OF ALASKA.

o COORDINATE WIT H TRADOC ON COMBAT DEVELOPMENT A C T IV IT IE S PE RTA INING 

TO COLD WEATHER, NORTHERN AND MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS.

o OPERATE THE US ARMY NORTHERN WARFARE TRAIN IN G CENTER, 

o PROVIDE CE RTAIN ADMIN IS TR ATI VE AND LO G IS TIC AL SUPPORT TO NONBRIGADE ARMY TENANTS AND OTHER DOD AGENCIE S IN ALASKA, 

o COMMAND THE USAR ALASKA AND PROVIDE AS REQUESTED LO G IS TIC A L,

AD M IN IS TR ATIV E, AND TR AIN IN G SUPPORT TO THE ALASKA ARMY NAT IONA L GUARD, 

o PLAN FOR AND PROVIDE ASSIS TANC E TO FEDE RA L, ST AT E, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES DURING DOMESTIC EMERGENCIES, UNDER THE OVE RALL GUIDANCE 

AND CONTROL OF THE COMMANDER, ALASKA A IR COMMAND, 

o SU PERVISE TRADOC A C T IV IT IE S TO INCLUD E THE NCO ACADEMY AND TR AIN IN G 

AID S SE RV ICE O FFIC E.

(S lide 12)
159

MAJOR WEAPONS SYSTEMS - ALASKA

REDEYE

DRAGON

MORTAR 81MM 

105MM HOWITZER (T)

155MM HOWITZER F1114A1 

AH -IG (COBRA)

NIKE-HERCULES

( S lid e 13)
160

Senator Huddleston. Thank you.

Mr. Fliakas. Admiral?

Admiral Carter. Mr. Chairman and Senator Sasser, the principal 

objective of our Asian strategy is to sup port national interest and 

promote peace in the Pacific area by maintaining a balance in the 

powers of the region. To accomplish this objective, several policies must 

be pursued simultaneously.

We need to maintain sufficient capabilities in the area to deter 

military adventurism and respond to contingencies for the national 

industry and the communications to assist in the security of Korea in 

obtaining our security objectives in Korea. The area is extremely 

important because it impacts on our allies and adversaries alike.

The fundamental orientation of Japan and China, the limitation of 

nuclear proliferation and deterrence of N orth Korean attack all dep end 

heavily on the perceptions of the United States resolved in capability to 

fulfill ou r missions.

For the foreseeable future, the major portion of our flexible and 

readily available combat power in the western Pacific will result from 

our Navy-Marine Corps team; the United States 7th Fleet and the Fleet 

Marine Corps Pacific.

Continuous deployment of these forces so far from the continental 

U.S. depends on a modest, but viable, base struc ture in the western 

Pacific. This forward base structure provides a flexible, in-place, quick 

response capability to deploy forces to meet anticipated contingencies.

These bases allow more efficient operations and a higher level of 

operations with a given level o f mobile logistic support.

The readiness of the operating force is in large part dependent on a 

base establishment which is capable of m eeting the operating, training, 

maintenance and logistic requireme nts of the forces.

In the prepared statement, as submitted for the record, there is a 

detailed listing of the individual bases and why each base is important 

and what functions it fulfills. I shall not cover those, at this time unless 

you desire me to.

Senator Huddleston. I do not think that would be necessary.

Admiral Carter. In conclusion, then, let me emphasize again the 

importance of the Navy’s overseas bases to the combat readiness and 

sustainability of deploy ed naval and marine forces. The Navy is 

sensitive to the concerns of the Congress for achieving a prop er balance 

between facilities, investments overseas, and the logistics supports in the 

United States and believes the military budget achieves this end.

That is the end of my statement, sir.

PREPARED statement

[Statement of Rear Adm. Powell F. Carter, Jr., U.S. Navy, Dep uty 

Director, Strategy, Plans and Policy Division, Office of the Deputy 

Chief o f Naval Operations, follows:]
161

re pared Sta te me nt of Rear Ad m . Pow el l F. ar te r, Jr ., USN

DEPU TY DIR EC TO R, ST RA TE GY , PLAN S AND PO LIC Y D IV IS IO N ,

O F F IC E OF THE DEPUTY CH IE F OF NAVA L OPE RAT ION S 

(P LA N S, PO LI CY AND OP ER AT ION S)

MR. CHA IRM AN, AND MEMBERS OF THE COM MITT EE:

I AM REAR ADM IRAL POWELL F . CA RT ER , DEPU TY DI RE CT OR , ST RA TE GY , PLA NS

AND PO LI CY D IV IS IO N IN THE O FF IC E OF THE DEPUTY CH IE F OF NAVAL OP ER AT ION S

FOR PLA N S, PO LI CY AND OP ER AT IO NS .

IT I S A D IS T IN C T P R IV IL IG E TO APPE AR BEFORE YO U, AND TO REPORT ON

UN ITE D STAT ES NAVY P A C IF IC FL EE T BA SI NG AND THE F IS C A L YEA R 198 0 M IL IT AR Y

CON STRUCT ION PR OJ EC TS THAT SUP POR T THESE B A SE S.

UN ITE D ST AT ES IN TE RE ST

THE UN ITE D ST AT ES I S COMMITTED TO REMAIN AN ASI AN POWER AND TO

CON TINUE TO CONT RIB UTE TO THE SE CU RI TY OF THE P A C IF IC REG IO N. THE P A C IF IC

ARE A I S ST RA TE GI CA LL Y IMPORT ANT TO THE UN ITE D ST A TES , BE CA US E:

o THE REGIO N AS A WHOLE, AND JAP AN IN PA RTI CU LA R, HAS MAJOR

CON CEN TRA TIONS OF ECO NOM IC OR M IL IT AR Y POWER;

o THE ST AT E OF SIN O -S O V IE T RE LA TIO NS i s C R IT IC A L TO THE BALAN CE

OF POWER, NOT ONLY IN THE P A C IF IC BUT AL SO IN EU RO PE , SI N CE IT DIVE RT S

LAR GE AMOUNTS OF SO VIE T COMBAT RE SO UR CE S;

o THE CO NT INU ING STA TE OF TE NSION IN KOREA HAS IM PL IC AT IO NS FOR

THE SE CU RI TY OF OUR A L L IE S IN THE NORTHWESTERN P A C IF IC .

UN ITED ST AT ES ST RA TE GI C O BJE CT IV ES

THE PR IN CI PA L O B JE CT IV E OF OUR AS IA N STR ATE GY I S TO PR ESE RVE PEA CE

IN THE AREA BY MAI NT AI NI NG A STA BLE BALANCE BETWEEN THE UN ITE D ST ATES ,

UNIO N OF SO VI ET SO C IA L IS T R E PU B L IC S, PE OP LE S RE PU BL IC OF CH IN A, AND JA P A N .

THE P O L IC IE S TO AT TA IN TH IS O B JE CT IV E CAN BE SUMM ARIZED AS FOLLOWS:
162

o TO MAINT AIN SU FF IC IE N T MIL IT AR Y C A P A B IL IT IE S IN THE AREA TO PRE SERVE

THE EQ UIL IB RIU M , DETER M IL IT AR Y CO N FL IC TS, AND RESPOND TO CO NTI NG EN CI ES .

o TO MAIN TAIN JA P A N 'S CONFIDE NC E IN THE UN ITE D ST AT ES COMMITTMENT

WHILE ENCOURAGING HER TO:

oo IN CR EASE HER SE LF -D EF EN SE C A P A B IL IT IE S PA RT ICU LA RL Y IN THE

AREAS OF AIR DEF ENSE AND ANT ISU BM ARINE WARFARE .

oo TO ASSUME A GREATE R ROLE IN A S S IS T IN G OTHER P A C IF IC NA TI ON S.

o TO EXPAND REL ATION S WITH THE PEOPL ES RE PU BL IC OF CH IN A.

o TO MAINT AIN FR IEN DLY RE LA TIO NS WITH COUN TR IES AST RI DE IMPORTANT SEA

LIN ES OF COMMU NICATIO NS AND THOS E WHICH PR OV IDE IMPOR TANT BA SES OR

AC CE SS RIG H TS.

o TO A S S IS T IN (OR CONTRIB UTE TO) THE SE CU RI TY OF SOUTH KOR EA.

UNITED STAT ES NAVAL POSTU RE IN THE P A C IF IC

U .S . C R E D IB IL IT Y IN THE P A C IF IC IS OF GREAT IMPO RTAN CE AND COULD HAVE

MAJO R EF FE CT S ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PR EM ISE S OF CURREN T UN ITE D STA TES

DEFEN SE PLA NNING AND ON C R IT IC A L UNI TED STAT ES IN TE RE ST S IN THE

REG IO N. THE FUNDAMENTAL ORIEN TATIO N OF JAPA N AND CH IN A, THE LI M IT A ­

TI ON OF NUCLEAR PROL IF ER ATI ON, PA RT ICU LA RL Y IN JAPA N AND KO RE A, AND

DETERRENC E OF NORTH KOREAN ATT ACK AL L DEPEND HE AV IL Y ON PE RCEP TIO NS OF

UN ITE D STAT ES RES OLV E AND CA PA BI LI TY TO FU L F IL L COMMITMEN TS.

IN KE EP IN G WITH A RECE NT PR ES ID EN TI AL D E C IS IO N , NO FORCE RED UCTIONS

BEYOND THOSE SCHE DULED FOR KOREA ARE CONTEMPLA TED FOR THE WESTERN

P A C IF IC . THUS FOR THE FORES EEA BLE FUTU RE , A CONS IDE RA BL E POR TION OF

OUR COMBAT POWER IN THE WESTERN P A C IF IC W ILL RE SI DE IN OUR NAVAL FO RC ES :

THE UNI TED STAT ES SEVENT H FL EE T AND THE FL EE T MARINE FOR CES P A C IF IC .

THE PRIN CI PA L ELEMENTS OF DEPLOYE D NAVAL POWER IN THE WESTERN P A C IF IC

AR E:
163

19

6

11

PERS ONNE L

2 ,5 0 0

1 0 ,0 0 0

6 ,0 0 0

UN ITE D STATES SEVENT H FL EE T SH IP S

CA RR IER S

SURFACE COMBATANTS

ATTA CK SUBM ARIN ES

AM PH IBI OU S SH IP S (AMP HIB IOU S READY GROUP)

MOBILE L O G IS T IC S SUPP ORT FORCE

UN ITE D ST AT ES MARINE CORPS

FORCES AFL OAT 1 MARINE AM PH IBI OU S UN IT

1 BA TT ALI ON LAND ING TEAM 

FORCES ASHOR E (T HI RD MARINE D IV IS IO N )

FIR ST MARINE AIR CR AF T WING

AIR CR AF T

UN ITE D ST AT ES MAR INE COR PS - 210 

UN ITE D ST AT ES NAVY - 242

WESTERN P A C IF IC BAS E STRU CTUR E

SI N CE THE BE GI NN IN G OF TH IS CENT URY, THE UN IT

A MAJOR POWER IN A S I A . OUR HI ST OR Y HAS BEEN IN EX TR IC AB LY LIN KE D WITH

A S I A , AND WE HAVE BEEN INV OLVED THERE IN THREE CO ST LY WARS IN THE

PA ST GE NE RA TIO N. THE UN ITE D ST AT ES S T IL L RE TA IN S SI G N IF IC A N T MIL IT AR Y

POWER IN THE AR EA .

WE HAVE CON TINU ED TO MA INT AIN FOR CES AND BA SE S IN A S IA NOT AS AN

END IN THEM SELVE S BUT BEC AU SE OF TH EIR CONT RIB UT ION TO THE PU RS UI T OF

OUR IN TER EST S. TH IS POS TUR E HAS REFLE CTE D THE B E L IE F THAT EQ UI LI BR IU M

IN A S IA I S ES SE NTI AL TO OUR OWN PEA CE AND SAF ETY AND THAT NO STA BLE

ORDER IN THAT RE GIO N CAN BE AC HIEV ED WITHOUT ACT IV E UN ITE D STA TES

SE CU RI TY INV OLVEM ENT . IT AL SO RE FL EC TS THE B E L IE F THAT MAINT ENANCE

OF THE POWER BALA NCE IN A S IA HELPS TO PR ESE RVE THE BALANC E OF POWER

IN EU RO PE. ONE TH ING I S CL EA R: FOR THE FO RESEE AB LE FUTURE NO OTHER

DEM OCRA TIC NATION WI LL TAKE OVER OUR PRE SEN T ROLE OF TR YING TO MA IN-

?ED ST AT ES HAS BEEN

TA IN A MILIT AR Y BALA NCE AMONG THE MAJO R POWERS IN A S IA
164

FROM A HIG H PO IN T IN THE LATE 1 9 6 0 s, WHICH RE FLE CTE D THE IN TE NSI TY

OF THE UN ITE D ST AT ES EFFORT IN IN DO CH IN A, WE HAVE BEEN LOWERING OUR

MILIT AR Y POS TUR E IN EAST A S IA . BA SE S HAVE BEEN REDUC ED, CO NS OL ID AT ED ,

AND ST RE AM LIN ED . THERE HAVE BEEN REDUCTI ON S IN FO RC ES , AND BOTH HEADQUARTERS AND HEADQUARTERS PERSONNEL HAVE BEEN CUT SH AR PL Y. FURTHER

RES TRU CTU RIN G OF OUR POSTU RE CAN BE EXPE CTED AS OP PO RT UN ITIES FOR

EFFI CIE N CY A R IS E .

OUR F A C IL IT IE S IN EAS T A S IA HAVE PR OVIDE D A HOST OF UNI QUE CAPAB I L I T I E S . IN GE NE RA L, THEY CAN BE CHARACTERIZ ED AS PR OV ID IN G THE

ACTU AL AND PE RC EI VE D CA TA CIT Y AND W ILL OF THE UN ITE D STAT ES TO EMPLOY

MILIT AR Y POWER IN A S IA . IN MORE S P E C IF IC TERM S, THES E F A C IL IT IE S

PR OVIDE IN TELLIG EN CE , IN -P LA CE COM MU NIC ATI ON S, RE PA IR AND MAINT ENA NCE,

L O G IS T IC SU PP OR T, TA CT IC AL A IR F IE L D S , MA TERIE L ST OC KP IL ES AND RE PL EN IS HMENT C A P A B IL IT IE S NEAR THE AREA OF FORES EEA BLE EMPLOYMENT. TH EIR

M IS SI ON S FREQ UENT LY SERV E DEF ENSE IN TE RE ST S BEYOND THOSE IN A S IA .

STRA TEGY I S C R IT IC A L TO BA SING

THE PR ES ID EN T HAS IN DI CA TE D H IS INTE NT ION TO MAINT AIN THE CURRENT

LE VE L OF FORCES IN THE WESTERN P A C IF IC . SHOULD A C R IS IS A R IS E WITH A

NEED TO RE INF OR CE OUR FORWARD DEPL OYED FO RC ES , THE FORWARD BA SE STRU CTURE

PR OV IDE S THE F L E X IB L E , IN -P LA CE QU ICK RES PONSE CA PA BI LI TY TO MEET AN TI CIPA TE D

CO NTI NG EN CI ES . ON THE OTHER HAND , BEC AUSE OF THE P O L IT IC A L AND

FI NA NCI AL CO NSTR AIN TS IN ES TA BL IS HI NG ALT ERNATE F A C IL IT IE S , AND THE

D IF FIC U LTY— I F NOT IM P O S S IB IL IT Y — OF TIM EL Y REENTRY IN A CONTINGEN CY

SI TU AT IO N INTO FORWARD BA SE S, THE FURTHER RE LIN QUISH ME NT OF MAJOR UN ITE D

STAT ES BA SE S WOULD RE QU IRE A CHANGE IN UN ITE D STA TES STRA TEGY TO BR IN G

OUR PR OT ES TA TIO NS INT O LI NE WITH OUR C A P A B IL IT IE S .

THE CURRENT STRU CTURE OF UN ITE D ST AT ES NAVAL AND UNITED STA TES

MAR INE COR PS BA SE S IN THE WESTERN P A C IF IC I S IMPORTANT TO MA IN TA IN IN G

OUR CURRENT NAVAL FORC E POST URE IN THE AR EA . THES E BAS ES SHOULD BE

VIEWED AS A COM PLE X; THEY ARE BOTH INTERDEPENDENT AND MUTUALLY SU PP ORTI VE.

THEY ALLOW MORE E F FIC IE N T OPERA TIO NS AND A HIG HE R LE VEL AND IN TE N SI TY

OF OPERA TIO NS WITH A GIV EN LE VEL OF MO BILE L O G IS T IC SU PPOR T.
165

AREA OF RESP O N SI B IL IT Y

THE COMMANDER IN C H IE F , P A C IF IC FL EE T’ S AREA OF R E SP O N SIB IL IT Y

EXTEN DS FROM THE CA LI FO RN IA COAST WESTWARD AC RO SS THE P A C IF IC , THROUGH

THE SE A OF JA P A N , THE P H IL IP P IN E S E A , AND THE SOUTH CH IN A SE A , AND

CONT INU ES WESTWARD IN THE IN DI AN OCEAN TO THE SOUTHERN T IP OF A F R IC A .

S A IL IN G AT A 20- KN OT SP EE D, IT TAKES A SH IP APP ROX IMA TEL Y 30 DAYS TO

TR AN SIT FROM THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE UN ITE D STA TES TO EAS T AF RI CA N

PO RT S. BA SE S IN HAW AII AND THE KEY P A C IF IC FL EE T OVERS EAS BAS ES

COM PLEXES LOCA TED IN THE P H IL IP P IN E S , JA PA N , GUAM, AND DI EG O GA RC IA

SERV E TO REDUCE TH IS RES PON SE TIM E IMM ENS ELY .

OPERA TIO NA L CONTROL

OPERA TIO NA L CONTROL OF FL EE T ASS ET S I S EX ER CI SE D BY THE COMMANDER

TH IRD F L EE T , HEADQUARTERED ON FORD IS LA ND IN HAW AII AND THE COMMANDER

SEVENTH F L EE T , HEADQUARTERED ABOARD THE CR UI SE R US S OKLAHOMA CI TY TO BE

REP LAC ED BY US S BLUE R ID G E , 1 JU NE 19 79 HOMEPORTED IN YOKO SU KA , JA PA N .

THE RE AD IN ES S OF THE OPERA TIN G FOR CES I S IN LARG E PAR T DEPENDENT

ON A SHORE EST ABL ISHME NT WHICH I S CAPABLE OF MEETING THE OP ER AT IN G,

T R A IN IN G , MAIN TENANCE AND L O G IS T IC A L REQU IREMENTS OF THE OPERATING

FO RC ES .

AD AK , AL ASK A

BE CA US E OF IT S ST RA TE GI C LO CA TI ON, THE NAVAL ST ATIO N , AD AK,

ALA SK A, PR OV ID ES AN EXCEL LEN T BAS E FOR AN TI -SU BM AR IN E WARFARE PAT ROL S

US IN G THE P -3 ORIO N AIR CR AFT . IT I S AL SO AN EXCELLE NT LO CA TIO N FOR

A COMMUNICATI ONS LI NK IN THE NORTH P A C IF IC AR EA . WE ARE RE QU EST ING

FOUR PROJ EC TS FOR A TOTA L OF 20 M IL LI ON DO LL AR S. INC LUDED IN TH IS

AMOUNT I S 1 2 .7 M IL LI ON DOLLARS FOR MO DERNI ZIN G TWO BARR ACKS CO MP LEXES,

AND 3 .2 M IL LI ON DOLLA RS FOR A D IN IN G F A C IL IT Y MO DE RN IZA TIO N. AL SO

INC LUD ED I S ONE WATER PO LLUT ION ABATEMENT PR OJ EC T FOR 4 .1 MIL LI ON

DO LL AR S.

THE NAVAL SE CU RI TY GROUP A C T IV IT Y , AD AK, AL ASK A I S PAR T OF THE

WORLD-WIDE TEL ECOM MUN ICAT IONS SYS TEM FOR THE NAVY DEFEN SE COMM UNICA -
166

TION S SYST EM AND NAVAL SE CU RI TY GROUP OP ER AT IO NS. THE REQU EST I S

4 MIL LI ON DOLLA RS FOR AN OCEAN SU RV EIL LA NC E BU IL DIN G ADDIT IO N;

2 .5 MIL LI ON DOLLAR S FOR BARRACKS MO DE RN IZA TIO N, AND ONE MINOR

CON STRUCT ION PR OJ EC T FOR A TOT AL OF 6 .8 M IL LI ON DO LL AR S.

HAW AII

THE PEA RL HARBOR COMPL EX IN HAW AII SUP POR TS MAJOR ELEMENTS OF

THE P A C IF IC FL EE T IN CL UD IN G P A C IF IC FLE ET HEA DQU ART ERS , SUR FAC E COMBA TA NT S, ATTACK SUBM ARIN ES AND LAN D-B ASE D AN TIS UB MA RIN E WARFARE AIR CR AF T

MAJOR A C T IV IT IE S INC LU DE THE NAVAL ST ATI ON, THE NAVAL SUBM ARIN E BASE ,

THE NAVAL A IR STATION BARB ERS P O IN T , AND THE NAVAL SH IP YA RD .

THE NAVAL SH IP YA RD , PEA RL HARBOR, PL AY S A SI G N IF IC A N T

ROLE IN SUPPO RT ING DEPLOYED AND HOMEPORTED P A C IF IC FL EE T S H IP S , ON

BOTH A REGULARLY SCHE DULE D AND EMERGENCY B A S IS . WORK LOAD I S MAINL Y

SU RFA CE ESC ORT S AND NUCLEAR-POWER ED ATTACK SU BM AR IN ES . THE REQUE ST

I S 7 .3 MIL LI ON DOLL ARS FOR CON STRUCT ION OF A NEW P IP E SHOP AND 420

THOUSAND DOLLA RS FOR ONE MINOR CON STRUCTION PR OJ EC T FOR A TOTAL OF

7 .7 MIL LI ON DO LL AR S.

THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE FL EE T MARINE FOR CES P A C IF IC I S AT

CAMP H . M. SM IT H, A IE A , HA W AI I. THE F IR ST MAR INE BR IGAD E I S STA TIO NED

AT THE MARINE CORPS A IR ST ATIO N , KANEOHE BA Y.

WE ARE REQU EST ING 4 .8 M IL LI ON DOLLAR S FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE

MAINTENANCE F A C IL IT Y AT THE MARINE CORPS A IR ST ATIO N, KANEOHE BA Y.

ALS O IN HAW AI I, WE ARE REQU EST ING ONE MIL LI ON DOLL ARS FOR

COMPRES SED BRE ATH ING A IR SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AT THE PU B LI C WORKS

CE NT ER , PEA RL HAR BOR , TO BE USE D AT THE SH IP YA RD .

MIDWAY ISL AN D

THE NAVAL A IR F A C IL IT Y , MIDWAY IS LA N D , PR OV ID ES F A C IL IT IE S AND

SE RVI CE S FOR L O G IS T IC SUP POR T OF AV IA TI ON AND SUR FAC E UN IT S OF THE

UN ITE D STA TES P A C IF IC FL EET. WE ARE REQUEST ING 3 .9 M IL LI ON DOLLA RS

FOR ONE WATER POL LUT ION ABATEMENT PR OJ EC T FOR A SA NI TA RY SEWAGE

CO LL EC TIO N AND TREATMENT SY ST EM .

THE KEY P A C IF IC FL EE T OVE RSE AS BASE COMPLEXE S ARE LOCA TED IN :
167

GUAM

GUAM, AS A UNITED STA TES TE RR IT OR Y, REP RES ENT S THE ONLY MAJOR

BASE COMP LEX IN THE WESTERN P A C IF IC TO WHICH THE UN ITE D ST AT ES HAS

ASSU RE D CON TINU ED A C C E SS. UN ITE D STATES FOR CES AND F A C IL IT IE S ON

GUAM SER VE A TWOFOLD PU RP OSE: THEY CON TRIBUT E TO A FORWARD DEF ENS E

AND EARLY WARNING CA PA BI LI TY AG AI NS T ANY THREAT WHICH MIGH T BE

DI RE CT ED AG AI NS T THE UNITED ST A T ES, AND THEY PR OV IDE A CA PABIL IT Y

TO RE IN FO RC E AND RE SUP PLY UN ITE D STAT ES AND A LL IE D FORCES ELSEWHERE

IN THE P A C IF IC .

GUAM PR OV IDES A FORWARD LO CA TIO N ON UN ITE D ST AT ES TE RR ITO RY FOR

FL EE T B A L L IS T IC M IS S IL E SUBM ARIN E (S SB N) SU PP OR T, SH IP R E P A IR , A IR 

ST AT ION F A C IL IT IE S , AMMUN ITION ST OR AG E, NAVAL SU PPL Y, DE PO T, AND

NAVAL COM MUNIC ATI ON S.

o SOME DIS ADVAN TAG ES OF GUAM AR E:

oo RE LA TI VE LY SMAL L SH IP RE PA IR F A C IL IT Y WORK FO RC E.

oo SH IP RE PA IR COS T MUCH HIGH ER THAN YOKOSUKA OR S U B IC .

oo MORE DIST AN T FROM SEVENTH FL EE T OPERATING ARE AS THAN

SU B IC OR YOKO SU KA .

oo AS I S TRUE WITH JA PA NE SE B A S E S, THE GUAM BAS E COMPL EX

I S RE ST RI CT ED FROM FURTHER EXPA NSION DUE TO SC AR CI TY OF AV AI LA BL E

LAN D.

IN GUAM, THE NAVY PU BLI C WORKS CENTER PR OV IDES U T IL IT I E S , HOU SI NG, 

EN GI NE ER IN G S E R V IC E S , SHORE F A C IL IT IE S PLA NNING SU PP OR T, AND ALL OTHER 

PU B LI C WORKS L O G IS T IC S SUPP ORT REQUIRE D BY THE OP ER AT ING FO RCES , DEPENDENT A C T IV IT IE S , AND OTHER COMMANDS LOCA TED IN GUAM. THE TOT AL REQUEST 

I S 4 .1 M IL LI ON DOL LARS FOR FOUR P R O JE C T S . ONE A IR PO LLU TIO N ABATEMENT 

PR OJ EC T FOR 1 .6 MIL LI ON DO LLAR S; TWO ENERGY CON SERVAT ION PR OJ EC TS FOR 

2 .1 M IL LI ON DO LL AR S; AND ONE MINOR CON STR UCT ION PR OJE CT .

JAPA N

THE JA PA NE SE BA SE COMPLEX I S IMPOR TANT DUE TO FORWARD LO CA TIO N

AND D IV ER SI TY OF F A C IL IT IE S . IT S LO CA TIO N I S OF GREAT IMPO RTAN CE
168

FOR KOREAN CONTI NG EN CI ES . THE SE BA SES ARE IMPORT ANT NOT ONLY AS

ST AG IN G BA SE S BUT ALSO FOR THE DEF ENS E OF JA PA N . THEY PR OV IDE V IS IB L E

PO LIT IC A L AND SYM BO LIC EVIDE NC E OF CO NT INU ING UN ITE D STATES IN TE RE ST

IN THE WESTERN P A C IF IC .

oo YOKOSU KA PR OV IDES A DEEP WATER PO RT , PETR OLEU M; O IL ; AND

LU BR IC AN T, SH IP R E PA IR , AND NAVA L SUP POR T DE PO T. IT I S THE HOMEPORT

FOR COMMANDER SEVENT H FL EE T FL AG SH IP AND ST AFF , US S MIDWAY (C V A -4 1 ) , 

DEST ROYER SQUADRON F IF T E EN , US S WORDEN ( C G -1 8 ) , AND US S WHITE PL AI NS 

( A F S -3 ) . TH IS Y EA R 'S PROGRAM INCL UD ES ONE MINOR CON STR UCT ION PR OJ EC T

FOR THE FL EE T A C T IV IT Y , YOKO SUK A.

oo A IR F IE LD COMPLEXES AT MIS AWA , IW AK UN I, KAD ENA, AT SU GI

AND FUTEMA ARE ES SE NT IA L FOR ANT ISU BM ARINE WARFARE AND OTHER A IR

OP ERA TIO NS FOR NAVY AND MARINE CO RP S.

THE MAR INE COR PS B A SE , CAMP SMEDLEY D . BU TL ER , OKINA WA, AND

THE MAR INE CORPS A IR ST ATIO N , IW AK UN I, PR OVIDE TR A IN IN G, L O G IS T IC

AND AD MIN ISTR AT IV E SUPP ORT FOR FL EE T MARINE FORCE UN IT S CO NS TITU TING

THE TH IRD MARINE AM PH IBI OU S FO RC E, THE LAR GES T UN ITE D STAT ES SE RV IC E

IN JA PA N . WE ARE RE QU EST ING 4 .3 MIL LI ON DOLLA RS TO MODERNIZ E

ELEV EN EN LI ST ED DIN IN G F A C IL IT IE S AND 7 .4 MILLION DOLLARS FOR A

WATER PO LLU TIO N ABATEMENT PR O JE CT.

P H IL IP P IN E S

THE SU B IC BAY AND CU BI PO IN T COMPL EX IS THE LA RGEST AND MOST

IMPORT ANT OF OUR WESTERN P A C IF IC BAS E COMPL EXES BEC AU SE OF IT S

LO CA TI ON, CA P A B IL IT IE S AND CONT RIB UT ION TO OUR OVE RAL L ST RA TE GI C

O B JE C T IV E S .

THE P H IL IP P IN E S ARE ST RA TE GI CA LL Y LOCAT ED AT THE M ID -P OI NT OF

THE OUTER LIN E OF FR IEN DL Y NA TIO NS STRETCHIN G FROM SOUTH KOREA AND

JAPA N TO AU ST RA LI A. THEY ARE AS TRI DE THE VI TAL SEA LI NES ALONG THE

AS IA N PER IPH ERY AND IN NEAR PR OX IM IT Y TO THE SOUTH CHI NA AND SOUT HEAST

AS IA N MAINLA ND. THE BA SE S REPRE SEN T AN ALMOST ID EA L BA SI N G SI TU AT IO N

AND PR OV ID ES A FU LL RANGE OF NAVAL AIRC RA FT AND SH IP R E P A IR , L O G IS T IC ,
169

COMMAND, CONTROL, COM MUNIC ATI ON S, TR A IN IN G , AND ME DIC AL F A C IL IT IE S .

THERE I S NO ONE BAS E THAT DU PL ICAT ES THE NAVAL FUNC TIO NS OF SU B IC BAY

AND CU BI PO IN T .

oo KEY ELEMENTS IN THE SU BIC BAY AND CU BI PO IN T COMPL EX ARE

PET ROL EUM , O I L , AND LUB RIC AN T ST OR AG E; AMMUNITION ST OR AG E; SH IP R EPA IR ;

AND AI RC RA FT SU PP OR T.

oo NAVAL A IR ST ATIO N , CU BI PO IN T I S A MAJ OR IN ST AL LA TI ON FOR

CA RR IER A IR GROUP OPERA TIO NS AND SU PP OR T, FL IG HT T R A IN IN G , LI M IT ED

AI RC RA FT REWORK AND SUP PORT FOR LAND BASE D ANT ISU BM ARINE WARFARE A IR ­

CR AF T. THE BASE COMBINES F A C IL IT IE S FOR A DEEP WATER PORT FOR CA RR IER

SU PP OR T, AN A IR F IE L D , FL EE T TR A IN IN G, L O G IS T IC SU PP OR T, AND AI RC RA FT

MA INT ENA NCE. CU BI PO IN T I S THE ONLY A IR F IE L D AV AI LA BL E IN WESTERN

P A C IF IC FOR DI RE CT CA RR IE R- AL ON GS ID E SU PP OR T.

CON STRUCT ION IN THE P H IL IP P IN E S MAY BE GI N WITH F IS C A L YEA R 19 81 .

BEC AU SE OF THE MOR ITOR IUM ON CON STR UCT ION SI N CE F IS C A L YEA R 19 75 ,

THERE ARE MANY HIG H PRIO RIT Y PR OJ EC TS IN THE P H IL IP P IN E S .

AU ST RA LIA

THE NAVAL COMMUNICAT ION ST ATIO N , HAROLD E . HO LT , EXMOUTH,

AU ST R A LI A , I S A VIT AL LIN K IN FL EE T COMM UNICATIONS AND THE DEF ENS E 

COMMUN ICATIONS SY ST EM . IT PR OV ID ES COMMAND AND CONTROL COM MU NIC ATI ON S, 

SH IP -T O -S H O RE SE RVI CE TO THE FL EE T AND SA TEL LI TE CO MM UN ICA TIO NS. THE

REQUEST I S 2 .5 M IL LI ON DOL LARS FOR A SA TEL LI TE COMM UNICATIONS GROUND

TER MIN AL TO MAKE THE AU ST RA LIA TER MIN AL COM PAT IBLE WITH OTHER TER MIN ALS

IN THE SY ST EM .

DI EG O GA RC IA

THE UN ITE D STAT ES NAVY SUP POR T F A C IL IT Y DI EG O GA RC IA HAS BEEN 

ES TA BL IS HE D TO PR OV IDE COMMUNICA TION SE RVI CE S AND LI M IT ED MAT ERI AL 

SUP PORT TO NAVAL FOR CES OPERATING IN THE AR EA .

NAVAL F A C IL IT IE S INCL UD E A COMM UNICATIONS ST ATI ON; A RUNWAY, 

PR IM AR IL Y TO SUPPORT DEPLOYMENTS OF LAND BASE D MA RIT IME A IR 

PAT ROL AIR CR AFT , AND A LI M IT ED L O G IS T IC S SUPP ORT AND PET ROL EUM ; O IL ; 

AND LUBR ICA NT STOWAGE C A P A B IL IT Y .
170

CONC LUSIO N

THE NAVY RE CO GN IZES THAT IT S P A C IF IC BA SE S ARE AND W ILL REMAIN

IMPORTANT TO THE RE AD INE SS OF NAVAL AND MARINE FOR CES IN THE P A C IF IC .

WI THI N THE F A C IL IT IE S RES OUR CES PR OV ID ED , THE NAVY I S ST RIV IN G

TO AC HI EV E A PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN F A C IL IT IE S INVEST MENTS IN THE

EUROPEAN AND P A C IF IC THEATERS OF OP ER AT IO NS .

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

REAR ADMIRAL POWELL F. CARTER, JR ., UNITED STATES NAVY

Powell Fr ed erick C arter, J r ., was born in Los Ang eles, C a lifo rn ia on 

3 June 1931, son of Powell F. Sr. and Helen (Shaw) Car te r (f a th e r deceased). 

He attended John Ma rsh all High School, Los Angeles, C a lifo rn ia and was 

graduated as cla ss vale d ic to ria n in 1950. He atte nded the U niv ers ity of 

C a lifo rn ia at Los Angeles (UCLA) and the C a lifo rn ia In s tit u te of Technology 

(CAL TECH) u n til called to active du ty with his Naval A ir Reserve Squadron 

at the commencement of the Korean C o n fl ic t. A fte r se rv ice in Japan and 

Korea he was appointed to the Un ited Sta tes Naval Academy by the la te 

Carl Hinshaw (20 th D is tr ic t, C a lifo rn ia ). He was graduated w ith d is ti n c ti o n 

and commissioned Ensign in the U. S. Navy on 3 June 1955. Subsequently , he 

advanced in rank u n til se lected fo r Rear Admiral in February 1978.

Ensign C art er's f ir s t du ty sta tio n as a commissioned o ffic e r was on 

board the San Diego, C a lifo rn ia based USS WASHBURN (AKA-108). Upon 

comple ting q u a lifi c a ti o n s as O ff ic e r of the Deck and Command Duty O ff ic e r, 

he ap pl ied fo r and rece ive d submarine tr a in in g at the U. S. Naval Submarine 

School, New London, Co nn ec tic ut.

Lieu tena nt (ju n io r grade) C arter's in it ia l submarine du ty was in USS 

POMODON (SS-486), se rving as Supply O ff ic e r and Assis ta nt Engin eering 

O ff ic e r from July 1957 u n til November 1958. In January 1959, LTJG Ca rte r 

atten ded nu clea r power tr a in in g fo llo wed by assignm ent to the precomm ission ing d e ta il , USS SCAMP (SSN-588) where he served as Na vig ator and 

Opera tions O ff ic e r du rin g sea t r ia ls , shakedown, 'and sp ec ial op erations 

in the P a cific Ocean are as. A ft e r detachment from SCAMP in October 1962, 

Lieu tena nt Car ter was assigned to the pre-comm issioning d e ta il of USS 

HADDO (SSN-604) at New York Ship build in g Cor po ra tio n, Camden, New Jersey , 

and served on board HADDO fo r 54 months as Main Propu lsion Assis ta nt and 

then Chief Engin eer. Lieu te na nt Commander C arter's ne xt assignments were 

on the Fleet B a ll is tic M is sile Submarine USS NATHAN HALE (SSBN-623) where 

he served u n til A p ri l 1969 w ith the GOLD Crew as Ex ecutive O ff ic e r, and 

then w ith the BLUE Crew in the same po sitio n.

Commander Ca rte r assumed command of the new at ta ck submarine USS 

HAMMERHEAD (SSN-663) in June 1970. Under hi s command, HAMMERHEAD became 

the f i r s t nu clea r submarine to surfa ce through the ice at the North Pole 

du rin g the w in te r pe rio d of to ta l darkness. A d d it io n a lly , HAMMERHEAD 

and her crew rece ive d two Navy Unit Commendations and c e M erito rious Unit 

Commendation fo r ot her sp ec ial op er at ions . Commander Car te r was awarded 

the Legion o f M erit tw ic e. The ship also won the B att le E ff ic ie n cy "E" 

tw ic e. In December 1973, Captain Carter repo rte d fo r his in it ia l to ur 

ashore as Ex ecutive A ssis ta nt and Senio r Aide to the Vice Ch ief of Naval 

Ope ratio ns .
17

hen Adm iral James L. Holloway I I I , was appointed the 20th Chief 

of Naval Op eration s on 1 July 1974, Captain Car ter was se lected to serve 

as his Ex ecutive Assis ta nt and Senio r Aide and remained in th a t po sitio n 

u n til ord ere d to du ty as Commander Submarine Squadron SIXTEEN in August

1976. Submarine Squadron SIXTEEN was based in Rota, Spain and co ns isted 

o f a la rg e , modern submarine tend er , ten o f the la te s t clas s Fle et 

B a lli s tic M is sile Submarines, a fl o a ti n g drydock, and va rio us a u x il ia ry 

c ra ft. Wh ile se rving as COMSUBRON SIXTEEN, Captain Carter was se lected 

fo r pro mo tion to the rank of Rear Adm iral and rece ive d ord ers to hi s 

curr ent assignment as Deputy D ir e cto r, S trate gy, Plans and P olicy D iv is io n , 

O ff ic e of the Chief o f Naval Ope rations.

Rear Admiral C art er's de co ra tio ns includ e fo ur awards o f the Legion 

o f M erit and ot her miscellaneous awards and campaign medals.

He is marrie d to the form er Carole Ann Oswald of Sc ranton, Pennsylvan ia 

and they have th re e ch ild re n , Gretchen K. C arter, Janeen A. Car te r and He idi 

K. Carter. His o f f ic ia l home address is Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles , C a li f

Rear Adm iral C art er's hobbies are A rt, Language, H is to ry , and P ain ting. 

His fa v o rit e p a rti c ip a ti v e sp ort is te nnis .

Mr. Fliakas. General Weise from the Marine Corps can provide a 

summary on the Marine Corps capability.

General Wf.ise. Yes, sir.

We have subm itted a formal statement in more detail for the record, 

but generally we have the following forces: the 3d Marine Division on 

Okinawa, with about 10,000 personnel; the 1st Marine Brigade, located 

in Hawaii with 8,700 personnel; the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing is located 

in Japan, with about 6,500 personnel.

A Marine air-ground task force is continuously forward deployed 

afloat. It is a Marine Amphibious Unit of about 1,700 personnel. We 

also have a battalion landing team of approximately 1,400 personnel 

afloat in the western Pacific.

These organizations have conventional ground equipm ent such as 

tanks, rifles, machine guns, artillery as well as supporting aircraft, fixed 

wing, helicopter, and close air support aircraft. The num ber and types 

of these equipments are contained in grea ter detail in the record.

PREPARED STATEMENT

[Statement of Brig. Gen. William Weise, U.S. Marine Corps, Director 

of Operations, follows:]
repared Statement of Bri g, Ge n. William Weise

U. S . MARINE CORPS

DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:

I a m Brigadier General W illi am WEISE, Director of

Operations, Headquarters U. S. Marine Corps.

It is a pleasure to appear before you to report on the

United States Marine Corps mission, structure, and 

capabilities in the Pacific Command area.

Marine Corps forces in the Mid - and the Western Pacifi c 

are under the command of the Commanding General, Fleet 

Marine Force, Pacific (CGFMFPAC), commanded by a LtGen 

who is a type commander under the operational control 

of CINCPACFLT.

Current operations and readiness training of FMFPAC 

forces are conducted as a deterrent to military attacks 

upon the US, its possessions and allies th_oughout the 

area encompassed by the Pacific Command (PACOM). Should 

that deterrent fail, FMFPAC is prepared to conduct such 

combat operations as may be required in pursuit of 

national military objectives, including the provision of 

augmentation forces to other unified commands.

FMFPAC forces forward deployed in WESTPAC are an 

integral part of PACOM naval forces, an instrument of the 

United States Forward Defense Strategy. The FMFPAC forces 

stationed in MIDPAC provide a Marine Air/Ground Task Force 

(MAGTF), in the form of the 1st Marine Brigade (1st KARBDE) 

capable of projecting additional combat power as may be 

required for the prosecution of naval campaigns in the 

Pacific Command.

Additionally, CGFMFPAC Functions in the dual capacity o
173

Com man de r, M ari n e C o rp s B a se s, P a c i f i c (COMMARCORBASESPAC), 

w h ic h e n c o m p a sse s comm and, u n d e r t h e Com m an da nt f o r th e 

M a ri n e C o rp s , o f th e fo llo w in g M a ri n e C o rp s B a s e s lo c a t e d 

in MID - an d WESTPAC:

Camp H. M. S m it h , H aw aii 

MCAS K an eo he B ay , H aw aii 

MCB, Camp S . D. BUTLER, O kin aw a, J a p a n 

MCAS, Iw a k u n i, J a p a n 

MCAS (H ), F ute nm a, O kin aw a, J a p a n 

T h e se b a s e s and a e r o n a u t i c a l s h o r e a c t i v i t i e s p r o v i d e 

s u p p o r t f o r g ro u n d and a v i a t i o n u n i t s o f FMFPAC an d f o r 

o p e r a t in g f o r c e s o f th e N av y. - - .

FMFPAC f o r c e s may b e em plo yed i n a l l t y p e s o f a m p h ib io u s 

o p e r a t io n s whe n s u p p o rte d by r e q u i s i t e a m p h ib io u s o r o t h e r 

s h i p p in g . M a ri n e f o r c e s a r e a ls o c a p a b le o f b e in g em p lo y ed 

in r a p i d r e s p o n s e o r r e in f o r c e m e n t r o l e s b y u s e o f t a c t i c a l 

o r MAC a i r l i f t o r by a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y lo a d e d s h i p p i n g .

When em p lo y ed in o p e r a t io n s o t h e r th a n a m p h ib io u s o p e r a t i o n s , 

FMFPAC MAGTFs a r e c a p a b le o f f u n c t io n i n g a s s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g 

U n i- S e r v ic e f o r c e s u n d e r th e o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r o l o f u n i f i e d , 

s u b o r d in a te u n i f i e d , o r J o i n t T ask F o rc e com m anders a t t h e 

d i r e c t i o n o f CINCPAC o r CINCPACFLT. FMFPAC MAGTFs a l s o 

p o s s e s s ’ th e i n h e r e n t c a p a b i l i t y f o r th e c o n d u c t o f 

h u m a n ita r ia n , d i s a s t e r r e l i e f , r i o t c o n t r o l , a n d e v a c u a t io n 

o p e r a t io n s a s r e q u i r e d .

O ur f o r w a rd d e p lo y e d FMFPAC f o r c e s a r e c a p a b l e o f r a p i d

r e s p o n s e a c r o s s a f u l l s p e c tr u m o f p o s s i b l e c o n t i n g e n c i e s 

r a n g in g fr o m a show o f f o r c e to m a jo r c o m b a t o p e r a t i o n s . /A

The f o r c e s to a c c o m p li s h t h e s e t a s k s a r e :

- 1 s t M a ri n e B rig a d e a t K aneohe B a y , H a w a ii

- 3 rd M ari n e D iv is io n a t Camp B u t l e r , J a p a n

41-63 8 0 - 7 9 - 1 2
174

- s t M ari n e A i r c r a f t W ing a t I w a k u n i a n d Camp 

F o s t e r , Ja p a n

- 3 1 s t M ari n e A m phib io us U n i t , A f l o a t

- B a t t a l i o n L an d in g Tea m B ra v o , A f l o a t 

P e r s o n n e l s t r e n g t h s o f t h e s e e le m e n ts a r e :

- 1 s t M ari n e B rig a d e — 8 7 0 0

- 3 rd M a ri n e D iv is io n —1 0 0 0 0

- 1 s t M ari n e A i r c r a f t W in g — C 500

- 3 1 s t M ari n e A m phib io us U n i t — 1 7 0 0

- B a t t a l i o n L a n d in g Team B ra v o — 1 3 5 0

M ajo r W ea po ns S y st em s a v a i l a b l e to t h e s e f o r c e s a r e :

- 1 s t M ari n e B rig a d e

18 - 105mm H o w it z e rs (TD)

6 - 155mm H o w it z e rs (TD)

48 - LVTP-7 - A m phib ia n T r a c t o r s

5 - M60A1 T an ks

24 - F 4J - F i g h t e r / A t t a c k A i r c r a f t 

17 - CH-53D - Hea vy H e l i c o p t e r s 

24 - CH -46 D/F - Medium H e l i c o p t e r s 

8 - U H -l s - U t i l i t y H e l i c o p t e r s 

3 - TA -4F - T r a in in g A i r c r a f t

- 3d M ari n e D iv is io n

24 - 105nun H o w it z e rs (TD)

12 - 155m m .H ow itze rs (TD)

2 - 8" H o w it z e rs (SP)

84 - LVTP-7 - A m phib ia n T r a c t o r s 

24 - M60A1. T an ks |

- 1 s t M ari n e A i r c r a f t Wing

24 - F 4 J - F ig h t e r / A t ta c k A i r c r a f t 

12 - A- 6E - A tta c k A i r c r a f t 

16 - A-4M - A tta c k A i r c r a f t 

8 - TA -4F - T r a in in g A i r c r a f t
175

4 - EA63 - E le c t r o n ic s C o u n te rm e a su re s A i r c r a f t , 

Im pro ved V e rs io n

4 - RF4B - P h o to /R e c o n n a is s a n c e A i r c r a f t 

6 - AV8A - V e r t i c a l T a k e o ff/L a n d in g A tta c k 

A i r c r a f t

10 — OV—10A - O b s e r v a tio n /L ig h t A tta c k A i r c r a f t 

T r a n s p o r t

18 — CH—46D — Medium H e lic o p t e r s 

21 - CH-53D - Hea vy T r a n s p o r t H e l i c o p t e r s 

12 — KC -13 0 — A e r ia l R e fu e lin g A i r c r a f t 

14 - UH-1 - U t i l i t y H e lic o p t e r s

6 - AH-1 - A tta c k H e lic o p t e r s
ii <; <; b

S A N T A B A R B A R A 

R O O R IO U E Z 

N IG H T M A R E

PA CA F

END FY 79

TO R I AD ENA

5 4 /F -4 D 

18 E IS 

I8 /R F -4 C 

15/K C -1 3S 

4 /M C -I3 0 E 

4 /H C -I 3 O 

5 /H H -S 3 

2 /C T -3 9 

5/R C 135 ROTE

IN G A L O N ANDER SEN

I 4 / B - 52

6 /W C -1 3 0 

t 6 /K C I3 5 ROTE 

M O B

A ir - t o - A ir R an ge 

A ir - lo G r o u n d R an g e 

Amm un ition Stor ag e

HIC KAM

9 /C -1 3 0

6 /H C -1 3 0

3 /E C -I 3 52 /C -1 3 5

6 /H H -5 3

4 /T - 3 3

O W ”

WHEELER

9 / 0 - 2

l/ C -7 (A N G ) 

3 /T -3 3 (A NG )

-o

os
US SR

S A N T A B A R B A R A

R O D R IQ U E Z

N IG H T M A R E

• M O B .

X X A ir - t o - A ir R an g e

A i r - 1 o - G r o u n d R an g e

Am m un itio n Sto ra ge

PACAF

END FY 79

END FY 80

WHEEL.K

HIC KAM •’V 9 / 0 - 2

9 /C - I3 0

6 /H C -1 3 0

3/E C -1 352 /C -1 3 5

6 /H H -5 3

4 / T - 3 3

4ss*ng >

1 /C -7 (A N G )

3 /T -3 3 (A NG )
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM WE ISE, USMC

B r ig a d ie r G e n e ra l W il li a m W ei se i s c u r r e n t l y th e D i r e c t o r , O p e ra tio n s 

D iv is io n , O p e r a tio n s an d T r a in in g D e p a rtm e n t, H e a d q u a rte rs M ari ne 

C o rp s, W a sh in g to n , D .C .

G e n e ra l W ei se was b o rn M a rc h .1 0 , 1 9 2 9 , in P h i l a d e l p h i a , P a. He 

g r a d u a te d fr om B enja m in F ra n k lin H ig h S ch o o l an d won an acad em ic 

s c h o la r s h ip to Tem pl e U n iv e r s ity in P h i l a d e l p h i a , w he re he e a rn e d a 

R .S . d e g re e in P o l i t i c a l S c ie n c e in Ju n e 19S 1. He a ls o h o ld s a 

m a s te r 's d e g re e in B u s in e s s A d m in is tr a tio n fr om A riz o n a S ta te 

lln i v e r s i t y (1 9 7 3 ).

He e n te r e d th e M ari ne C orp s a s a p r i v a t e in O c to b e r 1 951, a tte n d e d 

b o o t camp a t P a r r i s I s l a n d , S .C . an d E l e c t r o n i c s S ch ool a t G re a t 

L ak es, I l l . In 1952, he s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p le te d th e O f f i c e r C a n d id a te 

S c re e n in g C o u rs e , Q u a n tic o , V a. , an d wa s co m m is sio n ed a M ar in e 

seco n d l i e u t e n a n t .

Upon g r a d u a tio n from Th e B a s ic S chool e a r l y in 1953, he was a s s ig n e d 

i n i t i a l l y to th e 3d M ari ne D iv is io n a t Camp P e n d le to n , C a l i f . , an d 

was l a t e r t r a n s f e r r e d to th e 1 s t M ari n e D iv is io n in K o re a. T h ere 

he s p e n t th e re m a in in g day s o f th e w ar in Com pany "G ", 3d B a t t a l i o n , 

Sth M a rin e s , a s a m o rta r s e c t i o n l e a d e r , r i f l e p la to o n co mman de r an d 

co mpa ny e x e c u tiv e o f f i c e r .

R e tu rn in g to th e U .S . in May 1 9 5 4 , he s e rv e d f o r th r e e y e a r s a s a 

B a sic S chool i n s t r u c t o r an d O f f ic e r - in - C h a r g e o f th e B re c k e n rid g e 

L ib r a r y a t Q u a n tic o . D u ri n g t h i s p e r i o d , he wa s pro m o te d to c a p t a i n 

in A p ril 1956, an d a l s o a tte n d e d th e Army R an g er S chool a t F o rt 

B c n n in g , G a ., an d th e S upply O f f i c e r S c h o o l, a t Camp L e je u n e , N .C .

From 1957 to 1 9 5 9 , he s e rv e d in s e v e r a l s u p p ly b i l l e t s a t M ari ne 

C orp s B a se , Camp P e n d le to n . R e tu rn in g to th e F l e e t M ari ne F o rc e 

in M arch 1 9 5 9 , he s e rv e d a s a r i f l e co mpa ny co mman de r an d a s s i s t a n t 

o p e r a t i o n s o f f i c e r in th e Sec ond B a tt a l i o n s o f th e F i r s t , N in th , an d 

S e v e n th R e g im en ts a t Camp P e n d le to n an d on O kin aw a.

From Nov em be r 19 60 to A ugust 1 9 6 2 , he s e rv e d w it h th e F i r s t F o rc e 

R e c o n n a is s a n c e Company a t Camp P e n d le to n . D u ri n g t h i s t o u r , he 

c o m p le te d th e Army A ir b o rn e S ch o o l a t F o rt B e n n in g ; th e S p e c ia l 

W a rf are O f f i c e r s S c h o o l, F o rt B ra g g , N .C .; an d th e Navy Scu ba D iv e rs 

S ch o o l a t C o ro n ad o , C a l i f .

A r riv in g a t M o b il e , A l a ., in A ugust 1962, G e n e ra l W ei se s e rv e d 

a s I n s p e c t o r - I n s t r u c t o r o f th e 3d F o rc e R e c o n n a is s a n c e Co mpany , 

USMCR. W hil e t h e r e , he wa s p ro m o te d to m a jo r in J u ly 19 63.

In 1 9 6 5 -6 6 , he a tte n d e d th e Army Command an d G e n e ra l S t a f f 

C o ll e g e a t F o rt L e a v e n w o rth , K a n s a s, b e f o r e b e in g a s s ig n e d as 

an a d v is o r to th e R e p u b li c o f K ore a M ari ne C o rp s , U .S . N av al 

A d v is o ry G ro up, K o re a.

Im m e d ia te ly f o llo w in g p ro m o ti o n to l i e u t e n a n t c o lo n e l in O c to b e r 

1967, he a r r i v e d in V ie tn am an d wa s g iv e n com man d o f th e 2d 

B a t t a l i o n , 4 th M a rin e s . W hil e in V ie tn a m , G e n e ra l W ei se e a rn e d 

th e Navy C r o s s , th e S i l v e r S t a r M e d al, th e L egio n o f M e ri t w ith 

Co mbat "V ", and t h r e e aw ard s o f th e P u rp le H e a rt M edal .

From 19 68 to 1 971, he wa s an i n s t r u c t o r a t th e Army Command an d 

S t a f f C o lle g e , a t F o r t L e a v e n w o rth . He e n te r e d A riz o n a S t a t e 

U n iv e r s ity u n d e r th e A dv an ce d D egre e P ro gra m in 197 1 an d 

g r a d u a te d in 19 73 w ith a m a s t e r 's d e g re e in B u s in e s s A d m in is tr a ­

t i o n . He a l s o h e ld m em ber sh ip in two h o n o r s o c i e t i e s , B eta 

Gamma Si gm a an d Sig m a I o ta E p s ilo n .

Pro m ote d to c o lo n e l in J u ly 1973, he s p e n t a y e a r a t th e M ari ne 

C orp s S u p p ly C e n te r , a t A lb a n y , G a. , a s D i r e c t o r o f th e P e rs o n n e l
179

and A d m in is tr a ti v e D iv is io n . In 1974-7 5, he a tt e n d e d th e Naval 

War C o ll eg e a t New po rt, R . I ., fo ll ow ed by a y e a r as Commanding 

O f f ic e r o f th e " S tr ik in g N in th " M ar in e Reg im en t on Ok inaw a.

G en er al Weis e re tu rn e d to Newport in Se pte m ber 19 76 , se rv in g 

as a Management I n s tr u c to r and A dvis or to th e P re s id e n t o f th e 

.ival War C o ll e g e . W hile se rv in g in t h i s c a p a c ity , he was 

- e le c te d in Febru ary 1978 fo r pro m otion to b r ig a d ie r g e n e ra l.

He was pr om ot ed to h is p re s e n t gra de on Ju ne 1, 1978 and assumed 

h is c u rre n t assi g n m en t on Ju ne 19 , 19 78 .

B rig a d ie r G ener al Weis e is m arr ie d to th e fo rm er E th el Jaesc h k e 

o f P h ila d e lp h ia . They ha ve th re e c h ild r e n : C a ro l, who is 

m a rrie d ; M ar c, a stu d e n t a t MIT; and H o ll y , a stu d e n t a t th e 

U n iv e rs it y o f Rhode Is la n d .

The G e n e ra l' s i n t e r e s t s in clu d e r e a d in g , churc h wor k, Boy 

S c o u ts , sw im mi ng, jo g g in g and s p o r ts .
180

Senator H uddleston. Thank you, General.

General Gilbert. We also have a formal rundown of our force 

structure in the Pacific tha t I will provide for the record, but basically 

we have 192 tactical fighter airplanes, 14 B-52’s, 18 reconnaissance 

aircraft and 16 OV-IO forward air control aircraft and 15 KC-135 air 

refueling type aircraft.

The tactical fighters are located at Osan, Kunsan, and Taegu Air 

Force bases in Korea and Clark Air Base in the Philippines; Kadena 

Air Base on Okinawa, Japan. The bombers are based at Andersen Air 

Base in Guam. The reconnaissance and the air refueling aircraft are 

located at Kadena Air Base on Okinawa and in addition, at Osan we do 

have the forward air controller aircraft located there.

In addition to these forces, the plans call for a rapid build-up to 

something over [deleted] aircraft should there be a requirement. That is 

one of the reasons why we have not assigned some of our aircraft to 

NATO that we discuss from time to time.

Senator H uddleston. Where would they come from?

General Gilbert. They would come from our total CON US resources 

that we use to swing from one location to another, depending on the 

need. It would be those squad rons that were not assigned to NATO 

from which we would build to over [deleted] airplanes in Korea.

Senator H uddleston. In this area, how do we compare in air stren gth 

with out potential adversaries?

General Gilbert. Once we build to the plans tha t exist today, we 

compare favorably. I think, then, certainly------

Senator H uddleston. You mean on paper?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir, and in quantity, as well. Our numbers are 

far greater than the North Koreans. There is just one problem.

[Deleted.]

Senator H uddleston. All right, sir.

Pacific Air Forces Briefing— Lt. Col. William Faust

Mr. Chairm an, I also have a rundown of force structure in the Pacific that I would 

like to provide for the record.

[The information follows:]

The following slides indicate the bases and aircraft bed dow n in PACAF for en d 

fiscal year 1979 and the changes in the force by end fiscal year 1980.

These bases supp ort 192 tactical fighters, one squadron of 16 forward air control 

aircraft, two squadrons of in thea ter airlift with 32 aircraft, one bom ber squadron of 14 

aircraft, one air refueling squa dron with 15 aircraft, and one squa dron of 18 

reconnaissance aircraft.

OSAN AB Korea has one squadron of 24 F-4E ’s whose primary mission is air-to-air 

combaL Also, at Osan is a squadron of 16 OV-lO’s which provide forward air control 

of strikes against enemy forces. At Kunsan AB, Korea arc two squad rons with a tota l 

of 36 F-4D 's and an additional squadron of 12 F -D ’s at Taegu, Korea. The ir mission 

is air-to-ground support.

Kadena AB, Japan currently has three squadrons with 54 F- 4D ’s and one squa dron 

with 18 F-4C ’s. These aircraft also provide air-to-ground support. In fiscal qua rter 

April 1979 a squadron of 18 F-15 ’$ are programed into Kadena, and at the same time 

the 18 F-4 C's depart Kadena. Additionally, Kadena has one squa dron of 18 RF- 4C s 

which are used for reconnaissance missions, and a squadron of 15 KC- 135’s to provide 

air refueling supp ort
18

Clark AB, Philippines has two squadrons with a total of 48 F-4E’s. In fiscal quarter 

April 1979 12 F-4E’s will be replaced by 12 F- 4G ’s which will equip one squadron 

with 12 F-4E ’s and 12 F-4G’s. The F-4G is equipped with electronic equipment 

which enables the crew to detect radar emissions from such things as surface to air 

launching equipment. Clark also has one squadron of 16 C-130’s with the other 

squadron of 16 C-130’s being located at Yokota AB, Japan. The mission of these 

aircraft is to provide in theater air lift

A squadron of B-52’s with 14 aircraft is located at Anderson AFB, Guam. These 

aircraft provide bomber support in PACAF.

By the end of fiscal year 1980 the 54 F-4 D’s at Kadena AB, Japan are programed 

to be replaced by 54 F-15’s for a total o f 72 F-15’s at Kadena AB. Additionally, the 

first rotational airborne command and control E-3A arrives at Kadena in fiscal quarter 

Apr il 1980.

Senator Huddleston. All right, sir.

On the withdrawal of the 2d Infantry Division, what is the status of 

that?

Mr. Fliakas. Sir, as the Presiden t announced last month, no change 

has been made to the basic decision with respect to the withdrawal of 

the ground combat forces b ut it has been held in abeyance pend ing the 

reassessment of the strength analysis that is ongoing now.

So as you know, one battalion was removed last December and they 

are temporarily stationed at Fort Riley, Kans. The Secretary of Defense 

has not, to date, made a decision with respect to the home basing of 

the division when it is ultimately pulled out.

Senator Huddleston. I took my basic training at For t Riley. They 

will probably wish they were back in Korea. [Laughter.]

Mr. Fliakas. General Pinckney would like to add to this.

General Pinckney . On the withdrawal, I would just like to make sure 

that it is understo od that we do plan to withdraw a batta lion and two 

small sup port groups totaling 234 men in the June to July time frame. 

TTie decision to withdraw the Honest John batta lion was mad e before 

the overall decision was announced by the President and it makes sense 

anyway. It is the last such batta lion in the U.S. Army.

Jb cr c will be no change in comb at capability because the equipm ent 

will be turn ed over to the RO K’s. They already have two such 

battalions, so it makes sense to go ahead with th at

The major part of the 1979 withdrawals which occur during the latter 

part of this year are being held in abeyance.

Senator Huddleston. Does that affect your bud get request for 

Korea?

Mr. Fliakas. No, sir. We do have a very small amount—some people 

will say a token amo unt— I believe $7.1 million—in the Army’s budg et 

for site unspecified for the 2d Division should that decision be made, so 

there have been estimates, of course, as high as $75 million to $100 

million required in necessary construction in the first year after the 

division, after the main elements of the division were supp osed to be 

pulled back. But that amo unt is primarily for planning and some 

alteration and improvements that would be requ ired in order to 

shoeh orn in the first elements pending full construction.

Senator Huddleston. The withdrawal does not affect the need for the 

milk plant?
182

General R ead. No, sir. The way it is sized, it would accommodate it. 

As a matter of fact, the production of the current plant over there, is 

about 16,000 gallons. They put ou t now about 23,000 gallons by 

working additional shifts. The new plant is sized the same way, so it 

would be able by working on a shift basis to accommodate if they 

stayed, o r go down to an 8-hour shift if they came out.

General Pinckney . My understanding is that the milk plant provides 

for all U.S. forces in Korea, not just the Army.

General R ead. That is correct, sir. The Chairma n asked this question,

I believe, earlier.

General Pinckney. Of course, the Air Force personnel and the 

civilian U.S. personnel would be staying, and roughtly [deleted] Army 

noncombat personnel would be staying.

Senator Huddleston. How many Air Force people?

General Pinckney . Approximately 9,000.

Senator Huddleston. Do you have a break down on what portion of 

the $150 million requested is for operational as opposed to sup port 

forces?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir. I think we can provide that for the record by 

project, yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

Approxim ately 62 perc ent of the total amount is associated with operational bases 

and 38 perce nt is devoted to support bases.

[In millions o f dollars]

Operational Support Total

Arm y.......................................................... .................................... 6.790 11.860 18.650

Navy............................................................................................... 29.500 17.000 46.500

Marine Corp s............................................ 16.500 16.500

Air Force ................................................... .................................... 44.500... 44.500

Air National Gua rd .................................. ............................................... 180... .180

Defense Agen cies ..................................... .................................... 11.400 11.390 22.790

To tal.............................................. .................................... 92.370 56.750 149.120

Senator Huddleston. The fiscal year 1980 request includes about $57 

million more than in previous years for Japan and Korea. How much 

participation do we get from these countries, since this is a common 

defense effort?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir. I would like to respo nd first from the 

standpoint of mere facilities and ask General Pinckney to expand on it, 

the other contributory areas.

There has been ongoing for a numb er of years a rather extensive 

construction program relating to the relocation of U.S. units and the 

consolidation of forces and the reversion of properties to the Japanese 

Government. This started first with the reversion of Okinawa to Japan 

a num ber of years ago and the pull-out of our forces and for that, the 

Japanese have built some very excellent facilities for us.
183

All told, the plan would provide some relinquishment of some 30,000 

acres to the Japanese and the provision of like facilities for the U.S. 

forces at installations tha t would be retained by the United States.

There are about five of these programs on the revocation 

arrangem ent, totaling some $750 million.

In addition, there has been what is called a cost-sharing program 

initiated by the Japanese Governm ent to provide abou t $120 m illion of 

facilities for the United States. This is not related to any relocation, bu t 

in recognition of our needs there, and in an atte mpt to provide us with 

not only facilities, but also some of the costs of labor increases from a 

facilities standpoint. I will furnish a breakdown of the projects for the 

record, but they include over 400 units of family housing. It includes a 

num ber of barrack projects, both replacem ent and new construction, for 

the Marine Corps as well as a sound suppressor system at Kad ena and 

at the rehabilitation facility.

Jh is is a 2-year program. We, of course, encourage it very much. The 

Japanese Governme nt elected to provide us with what is called, with 

what they consider, noncontroversial types of construction items, 

housing and the like, rather than operational type facilities.

Maybe Gen eral Pinckney could add to tha t abo ut other contributory 

provisions.

[The information follows:]

Gov ernm ent o f J apan Cos t -Sha ring P rogram

Mr. Chairman, the information requested is classified. I will provide a separate 

answer to the committee.

General Pinckney. Of course, the Japanese Governme nt provides 

stability in East Asia through its own forces. Although their own 

constitution prohibits military forces, they have self defense forces that 

any other coun try would call an Army, Navy, and Air Force.

We do not encourage Japan to increase the size of her military forces 

but we do encourage them very strongly to increase the quality, the 

logistic support, et cetera, of those forces, that is, qualitative 

improvements. Partly as a result of our encouragement, they bought the 

F-15 from us, and they are buying the P-3 C and they may buy other 

significant systems.

They have, as Mr. Fliakas has pointed out, begun to not only have 

this quid pro quo exchange when we turn back the facility and square 

foot for square foot, they build us a new facility for it. That prog ram is 

rapidly coming to an end. Now they have in the budg et for the new 

Japanese fiscal year 1979, that begins the first of next month, this 

[deleted] 2-year construction program.

We believe that there will be a follow-on to that in fiscal 1980 with 

another 2-year program then. Those, of course, are one-time expenses. 

Once the barracks or dep end ent housing is built, tha t is it.

In Japanese fiscal year 1978, the year tha t they are in now, for the 

first time they began to pick up some of the costs of Japanese nationals 

employed by the Departm ent of Defense in Japan. At tha t time and the 

then-exchange rate, they assumed abo ut $23 million o f our costs— it
184

amounts now to between $30 million and $35 million in current 

exchange rates.

In Japanese fiscal year 1979, they will pick up an additional $35 

million, or roughly $70 million for labo r costs all in all. Another major 

contribution they make is in providing us with land areas rent-free and, 

of course, land is at a prem ium in Japan . When you build an air base 

in Japan, a big, flat area, you dispossess several thousand people in the 

process or take over several hundred farms, and it is not an easy thing 

to do.

It is much more of a contribution for Japan than it would be in the 

United States. We estimate in 1977 their support forces amounted to 

$565 million, in our terms, and they will increase. All told, the Japanese 

contributions will come to $750 milhon in calendar year 1979.

So they make a substantial contribution to us.

Their own forces in 1977, their defense bud get amounted to $6.5 

billion, so even though it is less than 1 percent of their gross national 

product, it is still a sizable amo unt of money. In 1979 between real 

growth of aroun d 5.5 percent per year in their defense budget and the 

difference in exchange rate, it would be equivalen t to about $11.5 

billion.

Senator H uddleston. I wonder what effect our normalization with 

the People’s Republic changed status with Taiwan and is going to have 

on our situation in that area. We have some 700 troops, I understan d, 

on Taiwan that would be taken off.

What kind of facilities are they occupying and what happens to 

them?

Mr. Fliakas. Sir, some years ago we closed down putting caretaker 

status on our operating bases to 700 people, primary supp ort type and 

administrative type, so there is virtually little in the way of installations 

or operational facilities that we have occupied in the last several years.

Senator H uddleston. What about refueling, logistics and other needs 

that Taiwan might have played a greater role in than they will now?

Will we have to make some accommodations for those?

General Pinckney. Yes sir.

[Deleted.]

Senator H uddleston. H ow abou t naval patrols and that sort of thing? 

Any effect there?

Admiral Carter. No, sir. We have not used Taiwan extensively for 

naval opera tions for a long time except to do occasional exercises with 

the Taiwanese. We make port visits there, bu t our main operating bases 

have been elsewhere. The bases in Japan and the Philippines will take 

care of o ur needs nicely.

Senator H uddleston. We are budg eting only $410,000 for the 

Philippines. That is for a flight trainer facility. Is this based on the 

actual need there, or does it have to do with the base rights 

negotiations.?

Mr. Fliakas. Basically the latter, Mr. Chairman. We had elected to 

defer valid requirements in projects. We do anticipate that in 

forthcoming future budgets that we will, based on our tenure, be 

required to proceed with.
185

Senator Huddleston. Are the negotiations proceeding?

Mr. Fliakas. Yes, sir.

General Pinckney. We signed with the Philippines ame ndm ents to 

the basic agreemen t so that they have been, in effect, concluded.

Senator Huddleston. Do we now have a requ irem ent to pay them a 

fee for staying there, a lease?

General Pinckney . We prefer not to put it in quite those terms. Part 

of the agreement was that we would provide them over 5 years $500 

million in military assistance or security-related assistance. However, it 

is important to keep in mind that half of that amount, $250 million, is 

in foreign military sales credits which are loans repaid to the U.S. 

Governme nt at really no cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

Our Departm ent of Defense is even paid an administrative fee of 2 

perc ent for managing the sale.

Senator Huddleston. Those purchases would be from us?

General Pinckney. Those purchases would be from us, that is correct, 

sir, and the only new obligational auth ority involved in tha t $250 

million is $25 million that goes into a sinking fund in case there is any 

nonp ayment on the part of the Philippines. The Philippines have a 

perfect record. They have never defaulted. They have never b een late.

So a lthough FMS entails a temporary require ment for N OA, we have 

every expectation that it will not be used and will just go back to the 

Treasury.

The other $250 million is $50 million in grant military assistance and 

$200 million in security supporting assistance.

Senator Huddleston. That is over a period of what time?

General Pinckney . Five years, yes, sir.

Mr. Fliakas. The agreement is until 1991.

General Pinckney . The agreem ent runs until 1991. It will be 

reviewed every 5 years.

Senator Huddleston. Do we have a mutual defense type treaty with 

the Philippines?

General Pinckney . Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. What if Subic Bay were not available to us? 

What alternate sites would we likely turn to for those activities?

General Pinckney. We would likely turn to Gua m in the first 

instance and to some extent to Japanese locations, but 1 think it is 

important to keep in mind that there is no substitute for Subic. Guam 

is 1,200 miles east and we just could not do the same thing.

Senator Huddleston. How far is Hawaii?

General Pinckney. Hawaii, as I recall, is bout 2,300 nautical miles 

northeast of Guam. It is m uch farther back in.

Senator Huddleston. You cannot get there from those locations.

General Pinckney . Th at is rig ht

Not only that, but we have a very low wage rate in Subic, much 

lower than Guam. Subic is the only overseas location, the only one 

outside the United States, I believe, where you can offload aircraft 

directly from the deck of an aircraft carrier to the air field, which is a 

tremendous asset There are major industrial facilties for ship repair and
186

aircraft at Subic. The space is not available, a trained labor force is not 

available, the type of geography is no t available at Gua m or anywhere 

else in the Pacific that we enjoy at Subic.

Senator Huddleston. W hat about Clark Air Force Base? What would 

we substitute for that, if we lost it?

General Pinckney. We would probably move back to Andersen Air 

Base at Guam or to Okinawa, but we simply could not do the things 

from those locations that we can do at Clark. Not only that, you would 

have to settle for a lesser job and it would cost a lot more money.

Senator Huddleston. The Philippines arc pretty imp ortant to us?

General Pinckney. They certainly are.

Senator Huddleston. What nations besides us are currently patrolling 

or deploying vessels in the Indian Ocean?

Admiral Carter. The French have warships in the Indian Ocean and 

so do the British. The Fren ch squadron is quite a bit larger than the 

British commitment. Actually, the British right now have one frigate 

and an oiler which are going along with the Britannia, which is the 

Que en’s yacht. In addition, the British have four auxiliary ships 

associated with hydrographic research.

The French have occasionally operated an aircraft carrier in the 

Indian Ocean.

Senator Huddleston. The Soviets, do they have some?

Admiral Carter. Yes, sir. The Soviets right now have one Kresta 

class guided missile cruiser in the Indian Ocean with a Kollin class 

destroyer, two frigates, and some auxiliary ships to support them.

Senator Huddleston. How much has been appropriated to date for 

the construction at Diego Garcia?

Admiral Z obel. $44,850,000 total Navy and Air Force.

Senator Huddleston. Is this considered only a communications 

station and fueling stop?

General Pinckney. I would say tha t that categorization still pertains, 

bu t maybe needs revision.

Senator Huddleston. Has the situation in Iran and the Middle East 

caused the situation there?

General Pinckney . It is causing it. It is obviously becoming more 

imp orta nt to us.

Senator Huddleston. I s the likelihood tha t we will see some reque sts 

for some additional funding there?

General Pinckney. I have seen no official piece of paper, but I would 

be willing to lay odds on it personally. That is just a personal judgment.

Mr. Fliakas. There is nothing, of course, in the 1980 program, sir, 

and there are a number of requirements, specialized requirements, tha t 

have developed that have been reviewed by the Join t Chiefs of Staff, 

bu t they are not as yet programed.

Senator Huddleston. What is the basic mission of the Kwajalein 

installation?

General Read. The Kwajalein Missile Range is a national missile 

range managed and operated by the Army. It’s purpose is for strategic 

offensive missile, ballistic missile defense [deleted] testing.
187

It employs some 11 of the islands in the Kwajalein Atoll 2,100 

nautical miles southwest of Honolulu.

The main users are the Air Force and Navy intercontinental ballistic 

missile and the sea launched ballistic missile program s, the Army’s 

ballistic missile defense systems, and advanced technology center 

programs.

Senator Huddleston. The $2.9 million is for resizing. What is that?

General R ead. It principally is to perm it us to get some more 

modern equipment and install some $11.5 million worth of modern 

instrum entation. We need that. All of it, but $4.36 million of it has had 

the procure men t funding authorized. The remaining $4.36 million is in 

the 1980 a nd 1981 budgets.

Senator Huddleston. Are there any new major programs planned in 

the future?

General R ead. Yes, sir.

[Deleted.]

Senator Huddleston. The Naval Com municatio ns Station at 

Australia, what is its basic purpose?

Admiral Z obel. A defense satellite communications system which will 

upgrade the current system. We have mobile vans that will b e replaced 

by this project.

Senator Huddleston. This type of project, is this going on elsewhere?

Admiral Z obel. There has been similiar upgrading in Norfolk, Gua m, 

and Hawaii. There are projects underway in Diego Garcia, in Italy, and 

in Scotland.

submitted questions

Senator Huddleston. I believe we will submit the rem aind er of our 

questions for the record, if it is suitable for you gentlemen. I do not see 

any objections.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Departm ent for response subseque nt to the hearing:]
188

uestions Submitt ed by Sena tor Huddleston

MISSION FORCES AND THE BASE STRUCTURE

S enato r H uddle st on. Are any maj or m is si o n ch an ge s pla nn ed in 

th e near fu tu re ?

Mr. F li a k a s . Th ere are no m aj or m is si o n ch an ge s pl an ned fo r 

th e fu tu re . Ho wever, th e Navy ha s p la n n ed , fo r en ha nc ed c a p a b ilitie s 

su ch as a t th e "C la ssic W iza rd" s i t e s in F is c a l Ye ar 1981 ( d e le te d ) . 

S im il a rly , fo r th e A ir F o rc e, 18 F-1 5s a re programmed to be bas ed on 

Kadena A ir B as e, Ja p a n , in F is c a l Q u art er A p ril 1979> a n d a t t h e 

same tim e 18 F-UCs d e p a rt Kadena A ir Bas e. By th e end of F is c a l 

Ye ar 1980 an a d d it io n a l 54 F-1 5s w ill be s ta ti o n e d a t Kadena to 

re p la c e th e re m ain in g F-4Ds . A ls o , th e f i r s t r o ta tio n a l E-3A a i r ­

bo rn e command and c o n tr o l a i r c r a f t w ill be lo c a te d a t Kad ena by F is ­

c a l Q u art er A p ri l 19 80 . A d d it io n a ll y , 12 F-4 w ild w ea se l a i r c r a f t 

w ill re p la c e 12 F-4Es a t C la rk A ir B as e, P h il ip p in e s , in F is c a l 

Q uar te r A p ri l 197 9-

KOREA AND JAPAN

S en ato r H uddle st on. Would yo u in d ic a te fo r th e re c o rd th o se 

p ro je c ts in th e F is c a l Ye ar 1980 budget which are id e n tif ie d w it h 

im pr ov ing re a d in e ss as op po sed to "h ouse keepin g-t ype" e f f o r ts ?

Mr. F li a k a s . The fo ll o w in g l i s t i n g has be en an n o ta te d to 

r e f l e c t th o se p ro je c ts wh ich are id e n tif ie d w ith im pr ov in g re a d in e ss 

and th o se wh ich are id e n tif ie d as house keepin g-t ype e f f o r t s .
189

FY 198 0 M ili ta ry C o n str u c ti o n Program 

in Ja pan and Korea

($ M il li o n s)

C o u n tr y /

Component I n s ta ll a ti o n /P r o je c t

P ro je c t I n s ta ll a ti o n

Cos t T o ta l

JAPAN

Army Okinawa 2.7 00

Rep la ce Pet ro le um Tan ks ,

Kuwae, Tan k Farm 2 2.7 00 a /

Navy M arine Corps B as e, Camp 

Sm edley D. B u tl e r, Okinawa 11 .7 00

S a n it a ry Sewage C o ll e c ­

tio n and Tre at m en t

D in in g F a c i l i t i e s

7.4 00 b /

M odern iz ati on

F le e t A c tiv i ti e s , Yokosuk a

4.3 00 a /

.150

A ir C o n d it io n in g .150 b /

A ir For ce Kad ena A ir Base 1.1 00

Sq ua dr on F li g h t

O p era ti o n s F a c il it y 1 .1 00 a /

Dep en de nts Misawa A ir Base 5.0 70

Sch oo ls High Sch oo l

Yo kota E ast A ir Base

5.0 70 b /

2.4 50

E le m en ta ry Sch oo l

A d d it io n 2.4 50 b /

A ts u g i N av al A ir F a c il it y .580

E le m en ta ry Sch oo l

A d d it io n .5 80 b /

KOREA

Army V ari ous L ocati ons 4.6 10

F ir e S ta tio n , Camp

Walk er .2 70 b /

M ilk P la n t, K 16 

C onver si on Comm unica3.1 50 b /

tio n s C en te r .2 40 a /

Arms S to ra g e F a c ility 

Upg rad e and A lt e r Arms

.4 00 j /

Rooms .3 50 a /

Sta nd by Pow er fo r A ut omate d Data P ro cessi n g .2 00 a /

A ir Fo rc e Kunsan A ir Ba se 4.0 10

Add to and Up gra de 

Ta xiw ays

A lt e r A ir c r a f t S h e lt e rs

3.5 00 a / 

.5 10

Osa n A ir Base 20.7 30

Qu ick Tu rn F a c il it y 6 .0 0 0 a /

A ir c r a f t Ar m/Disar m Pads 1.3 50 t]

A ir c r a f t S h e lt e rs

F li g h t S im u la to r T ra in -

12.0 00 a /

in g F a c il it y .7 30 a /

T o ta l

23.7 50

33.1 50

*♦1-638 0 - 79 - 13
190

A ir c r a f t In str u m en t 

L andin g/N avig ati on 

F a c il it y - 1 PAR .2 20 a /

A ir c r a f t S e c u rit y Sy stem .1+30 a /

Ta egu A ir Base .510

Un accomp anied O ffic e r 

P ers o n n el Hou sin g .5 10 b /

De pe nd en ts S eo u l, Yongsan G arr is o n 3.2 90

Sc ho ol s Hi gh Sch ool Annex 3 .2 90 b /

a / P ro je c ts id e n t if ie d w it h im pr ov in g re a d in e s s , 

b / P ro je c ts id e n tif ie d as h o u se k eep in g -t y p e.

STATUS OF FORCES IN KOREA

S en ato r H uddle st on. To wh at e x te n t ha ve th e s e re c e n t a s s e s s ­

ments be en co n si d ere d in develo pin g th e pr og ra m s j u s t d e sc ri b e d ? 

W il l th ey ha ve to be a lt e re d ?

Mr. F li a k a s . W hil e th e th r e a t o f N or th K o re a's m ilita r y 

c a p a b ili ty w ill alway s be a ke y f a c to r in d evelo pin g pr og ra m s, th e 

re c e n t ass ess m ents ha ve had no s ig n if ic a n t im pa ct on th e prog rams 

j u s t d e sc rib e d .

MISSION FORCES AND THE BASE STRUCTURE

Q uest io n. While many i n s ta l la t io n s o b v io u sly e x is t p rim a ril y 

to su p p o rt th o se de plo yed fo rc e s , o th e rs ha ve s p e c if ic o p e ra ti o n a l 

m is si o n s. Would you d e sc rib e th ese?

Res po ns e. D ir e c t su pport to dep lo ye d fo rc e s is pro vid ed by 

su pp ly d e p o ts , sh ip re p a ir f a c i l i t i e s , am mun ition m ag az in es , a i r 

s ta tio n s , and s im ila r sh or e e s ta b li sh m e n ts . The Na val S e c u ri ty 

Group a c t i v i t i e s p ro vid e d ir e c t su p p o rt in a d d it io n to s e c u r it y 

fu n c ti o n s. Co mm un ica tio ns s ta tio n s s im ila r ly p ro v id e d ir e c t 

su p p o rt as w ell as co mmun ications fo r D ef en se S a t e l l i t e Sy ste ms 

and a d m in is tr a ti v e fu n c ti o n s. O ce an og ra ph ic and w ea th er a c t i v i t i e s 

have dual fu n c ti o n s a ls o . In d ir e c t su p p o rt i s pro vid ed by P u b li c 

Works C e n te rs , O ff ic e rs -i n -C h a rg e of C o n str u c ti o n , m ed ic al 

f a c i l i t i e s , e le c tr o n ic f ie ld o f f ic e s and s im ila r sh ore f a c i l i t i e s .

Q uest io n. Fo r ex am ple, wh at is th e m is si o n of Adak, A lask a 

or th e co mm un ications s ta tio n a t H ar old E. H o lt , A u str a li a ?

Res po ns e. Be ca us e of i t s s t r a te g i c lo c a tio n , Adak p ro v id es 

a ba se fo r P-3 p a tr o l a i r c r a f t and o th e r fo rc e s wh ich su p p o rt a 

pri m ar y m is si o n o f an ti -s u b m a ri n e w a rf a re . G en er al co mm un ications 

a re a ls o pro vid ed as w ell as Naval S e c u rit y Group fu n c ti o n s.

Harold E. H olt p ro v id es ver y low fr equency co mmun ications fo r 

command and c o n tr o l o f de pl oy ed fo rc e s as w ell as D ef en se S a t e l l i t e 

Co mm unica tions an d hig h fr eq uency ra d io co mm un ications fo r p o in tto -p o in t as w ell as s h ip -to -s h o re c i r c u i t s .

PHASING OF WITHDRAWAL

Q uest io n. What is th e phasi ng o f t h i s w ithdra w al?

An swer. O rig in a l p la n c a ll e d fo r in c re m e n ta l w ithdra w al o f
19

fo rc e s ov er a 4- 5 y ear p eri o d w ith 1 s t in cre m ent c o n s is ti n g o f 

6,0 00 sp aces sc hedule d fo r w ithdra w al by end o f C ale ndar Yea r 19 78 . 

The P r e s id e n tia l anno un ceme nt A p ril 21 , 197 8 o u tl in e d in te n t to 

dela y major p o rtio n o f 1 s t in cr em en t w it hdra w als u n t i l CY 19795 

1 st in cr em en t w it hdra w al is in two phas es (i n cre m en ts 1A and IB ):

a . "1A" c o n s is ti n g of 3 S

436 sp aces: 842 2d In fa n tr y D iv is io n 

sp ac es and 2,5 9^ n o n d iv is io n a l sp aces we re w it h d ra w n /i n a c ti v a te d 

by end Dec ember 19 78 . The 2d B a tt a li o n , 9 th In fa n tr y re deplo yed 

to F o rt R il e y , K an sa s, as an in te rim mea su re pe nd in g a s ta tio n in g 

d e c is io n fo r th e 2d In fa n tr y D iv is io n .

b . W ithd ra w al o f th e re m ai nder o f th e o r ig in a l 1 s t in cr em en t 

(" IB " - 2, 56 4 sp aces in c lu d in g 2,0 48 from 2d In fa n tr y D iv is io n ) w ill 

be co nd uc te d in CY 1979- The 2,0 48 "IB " sp aces from th e 2d In fa n tr y 

D iv is io n in c lu d e HHC, 3<3 B ri gade; 1 s t B a tta lio n , 38th I n f a n try ; 1 st 

B a tt a li o n , 15th F ie ld A r ti ll e r y ; two p ro v is io n a l TOW Com pa nies; and 

one company ea ch fro m th e d iv is io n a l e n g in e e r, m ai nte nance, and 

m ed ic al b a tt a li o n s .

The A p ril 21 anno un ceme nt d id n o t a l t e r p la n s fo r su bse quent 

w it h d ra w als . The 2d in cr em en t o f ap p ro x im ate ly 9,0 00 sp aces in c lu d ­

in g (d e le te d ) fro m th e 2d In fa n tr y D iv is io n is to be w ith dr aw n by 

J u ly 1, I98O.

The 3d in cre m ent c a ll s fo r th e re d e p lo y m e n t/ in a c ti v a ti o n o f 

appro xim ate ly (d e le te d ) sp ac es (d e le te d ) which w ill th e n le a v e a 

t o t a l gr ou nd r e s id u a l fo rc e o f ap pro xim ate ly 6,0 00 sp aces.

The fo ll o w in g summarizes by f i s c a l y e a r th e major u n it t r a n s f e r s / 

in a c tiv a ti o n s /c o n v e rs io n s /d e c re m e n ts :

a . U n it s re tu rn in g to CONUS.

(D ele te d )

b . U nit in a c tiv a ti o n s /c o n v e rs io n s /d e c re m e n ts .

FY 197 8 - In a c tiv a tio n o f n o n -d iv is io n a l Hon es t Jo hn 

B a tta lio n and Nike H erc ule s B a tta lio n , A ppr ox im at el y 1,0 00 sp aces.

(D ele te d )

NORTH KOREA REASSESSMENT

Q u e stio n : Is th is p la n bein g re c o n s id e re d in lig h t o f

in te llig e n c e re asse ss m ents o f N ort h Ko re an fo rc e s ?

Answ er: We a re c u r r e n tly re a s s e s s in g o u r p la n s fo r w ith ­

dra w al in lig h t o f th e new N ort h Ko rean O rd er o f B a ttle in fo rm a ­

tio n . We e xp e ct to com ple te th e re asse ss m ent by la te s p rin g and 

would e xp e ct to b r i e f key com m itte es o f th e Con gres s o f th e r e s u lt s 

by e a rly summer. As th e P re s id e n t has in d ic a te d , th e re m a in in g 

w it h d ra w a ls a re b ein g h e ld in ab ey an ce pendin g c o m p le ti o n o f th e 

re ass ess m ent o f N o rt h Ko rean gro und fo rc e s . The one e x c e p ti o n is 

th e Hon es t John b a tta lio n w hic h w i l l c o n ti n u e be ca us e th a t 

b a tta lio n is th e la s t HJ u n it in th e U .S . Army and was schedule d 

fo r phase out lo ng b e fo re th e w it h d ra w a l was decid ed and be ca us e 

th e equip m ent w i l l be tu rn e d o ve r to th e ROK so th a t th e re w i l l be 

no re d u c ti o n in m ilit a r y c a p a b ilit y .

PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY, WAKE ISLAND

Q u est io n . A t o t a l o f $11.4 m ill io n is re q u este d to r e p a ir and 

expand fu e l sto ra g e c a p a c it y on Wake Is la n d . Would yo u e la b o ra te 

and e x p la in th e m is si on ne ed s which g e n e ra te a giv en sto ra g e cap aci t y re q u ir em en t?
192

Answer. Wake Island figu re s prominen tly in (d el et ed ) as an 

emergency fie ld . PACAF and MAC have id en ti fi ed a req uirem ent fo r 

(d el et ed ) bb ls of fu el at Wake Isla nd to sup port th e f i r s t (d el et ed ) 

the most demanding pla ns in the P acif ic . At pre se nt , th er e is about 

142,000 bb ls of usable stor ag e on Wake Is la nd . This pr oje ct bu ilds 

100,000 bb ls new and re fu rb is he s 161,000 bb ls fo r a to ta l of 403,000 

bb ls of usab le stor ag e upon pro je ct comp letion . The ad ditio nal POL 

req uirem ents w il l be programmed in the fu tu re M ilitar y Co nstru ction 

Program.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator H uddleston . I want to thank all of you. I appreciate your 

coming. I am getting an education, if nobody else is, at these sessions.

We will have additiona l questions. Oth er mem bers of the 

subcommitee may, also.

Mr. Fliakas. We will re spond.

Sena tor H uddleston . Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., Friday, March 9, the subcommittee was 

recessed, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIO NS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1979

U.S. Sena te,

Subcom mittee of the Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:10 a.m. in room 1114, E verett McKinley Dirksen Office Building, Hon. W alter D. Huddleston (chairman) 

presiding.

Present: Senators Huddleston, Sasser, and Laxalt.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

National Guard and Reserve Forces

BUDGET REQUEST

Senator Huddleston. The subcommittee will come to order.

Our subject this morning is the fiscal year 1980 military construction program for the Guard and Reserve components. The 

Guard and Reserve now constitute about 30 percent of our fighting 

force, and they have also assumed many new missions traditionally 

performed by the active forces.

The fiscal year 1980 budget request for these components is some 

$100 million, approximately 40 percent below last year’s approp riations. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense has advised the 

subcommittee that this reduction, and I quote him, “should not be 

interpreted as a lack of support of the Guard and Reserve Forces 

program, but rath er, a proportionate shar e of an austere military 

construction request.”

Quite frankly, we are less concerned with the equity or proportion of the request than with its adequacy to meet even minimum 

construction needs. Today’s hearing should offer some insight into 

tha t question.

Our witnesses this morning include the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau, and the Chiefs, or the ir representatives, of the 

various Reserve components. We will also be receiving testimony 

from the Reserve Officers Association, the National Guard Association of the United States, and the Adjutants General Association 

of the United States.

Since there are so many witnesses, and since much of the questioning will be generic in natu re, I think we could expedite things 

if we receive all the statements in tur n before questioning begins. 

Perhaps we can begin with the Army and Air Guard, followed by 

the Army, Navy, and Air Force Reserves, and concluding with our 

(193)
194

public witnesses from the ROA, Guard Association, and the Adjutants General Association of the United States.

Before proceeding, I would like to defer to Senator Laxalt, the 

ranking minority member.

Do you have any comments at this time, Senator?

Senator Laxalt. than k you, Mr. Chairman.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of these gentlemen here 

today with regard to the construction needs of the Guard and 

Reserve.

Gentlemen, I am well aware, from my own experience as Governor, of the vital role that the Guard and Reserve play in the total 

force concept of our defense. I am also aware, as you are, of the 

drastic cut that you have taken in your fiscal year 1980 budget 

request for military construction. I share your concern over these 

cuts, considering th e declining strength figures in the Guard and in 

the Reserve.

I thin k tha t you are probably in a “Catch-22” situation, since you 

need every inducements possible to recruit and retain individuals 

for your units.

Senator H uddleston, than k you, Senator.

We will begin, then, with Major General Weber.
ational Guard Bureau

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. LAVERN E. WEBER. CHIE F, NATIONAL 

GUARD BUREAU

P R E P A R E D S T A T E M E N T

General Weber. Mr. Chairman, and Senator Laxalt, it is a privilege to appear again this year before this distinguished committee 

to present our 1980 military construction budget request for the 

Army and the Air National Guard.

With the committee’s permission, I would like to submit, for the 

record, the formal statement, and refer very briefly to some notes 

that I have made.

Senator H uddleston. Thank you, General. Your entire statement will be included in the record, without objection.

[The stateme nt follows:]

Statement of Ma j. Gen. Lavern E. Weber

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a privilege to appear before 

this distinguished committee to present the fiscal year 1980 Military Construction, 

Army National Guard Budget request.

The National Guard’s efforts to develop an integrated force structure that can 

and will deploy in support of the Army’s Total Force requirem ents have stabilized. 

The number of affiliated Army National Guard and Army Reserve battalions now 

stands at 93. Currently 77 units, or more th an 82 percent of the participating units, 

are from the Army National Guard. The Army National Guard has implemented 

the new Force Packaging Programing Methodology which places emphasis on those 

projects which relate directly to early deployment units.

The increase in the emphasis on early deployability also means tha t these units 

must be adequately equipped. The current dollar value of equipment issued during 

the period 1 October 1977 to 30 September 1978 was in excess of $351 million, based 

on standard Army prices. The bulk of this equipment was in the form of tanks and 

other combat vehicles. The $20.0 million fiscal year 1980 Budget Plan provides for 

the following:

Estimate d Federal cost 

[Dollars in millions]

21 armory projects...................................................................................... $11.6

5 nonarmory projects.................................................................................. 3.0

Minor construction.—.................................................................................. 2.9

Planning (A/E)............................................................................................ 2.5

To tal................................................................................................. 20.0

The $20.0 million requested in fiscal year 1980 represents a 62 percent reduction 

when compared to the $52.2 million appropriated in fiscal year 1979. This program 

will support mission requirements in 11 States and Puerto Rico. The five nonarmory 

projects consist of two projects at train ing sites and three vehicle maintenance 

facilities. All of these projects are urgently needed to support improved training and 

unit readiness. The increased requirements for maintenance and storage facilities, 

coupled with the need for advanced train ing and the decrease in available funding’ 

has created a construction backlog, which currently stands at $672 million.

This backlog does not include cost escalation which has been running about 8 

percent; therefore, any reduction in the current level of backlog is highly unlikely. 

(195)
196

We obligated 93 percent of the available funds dur ing fiscal yea r 1978. We were 

left with $4.2 million to c arry over into fiscal yea r 1979. Our cur ren t fiscal yea r 1979 

Appropriation of $52.2 million provides an obligation target of $52.0 million. We 

expect to reach this target; there fore, we would have a carry over of $4.4 million into 

fiscal year 1980. We plan to obligate $22 million during fiscal yea r 1980, which 

would then give us $2.4 million to car ry over into fiscal yea r 1981. Our obligation 

figures include Minor Construction and Planning funds as well as Major Construction.

I wish to express my appreciation for your understanding and continuing support 

of our efforts to provide adeq uate facilities for our Army National Gua rd Forces. 

This concludes my prep ared statement. If there are any questions, I will be pleased 

to furnish any information th at you may require.

Biographical Sketch

Major General La Vern E. Weber was born on 3 September 1923 in Lone Wolf, 

Oklahoma. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenan t, U.S. Marine Corps upon 

graduatio n from Officer Candidate School in 1945 and served until 1946. He was 

commissioned in the Army National Gua rd in 1948, and gradua ted from the U.S. 

Army Command and General Staff College, 1955.

Major Gene ral Weber’s early career included assignments as a U.S. Marine Corps 

platoon leader in World War II and as an Army Oper ation s Officer in Korea. 

Subsequent to 1952, he performed sta ff d uty in the Oklahoma Army National Guard 

at battalion, regimental and division levels. From 1952 to 1964, he served successively as S-3, 179th Infantry Regiment, Oklahom a Army National Guard; G -l , 45th 

Division, OKARNG; and Chief of Staff, 45th Infan try Division, OKARNG.

On 8 March 1965, G eneral Weber was promoted to Major Gene ral con cur ren t with 

his appo intm ent as State Adjutant General of Oklahoma. He served in the position 

of Adjutant Gene ral until his appointme nt as Director, Army Nati onal Guard, 11 

October 1971. He was appointed by the Pre sident to be Chief of th e Nati onal Guard 

Bureau and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on 16 August 1974. He was reappointed 

for a second term on 22 August 1978.

General Weber. A background for the addressing of our budget 

request, the Army and the Air National Guard has had a very 

rewarding and worthwhile participation in the total force during 

the past year. We have had unusual difficulties main taining our 

strength. The Air National Guard has done quite well, remaining 

well over the 91,000 strength.

The Army National Guard has devoted an awful lot of effort to 

acquiring new enlistees, and maintaining the strength that we 

have, but nonetheless during the year we lost almost 16,000 from 

our strength.

In readiness—we have had some very real gains in readiness, 

both for the Army and the Air National Guard. For the second 

consecutive year, the Air National Guard completed its operational 

readiness inspections satisfactorily. For the past 2 years we have 

gone with total satisfactories across the board in the Air National 

Guard, and the number of inspections now exceeds 180.

Likewise, in the equipment area that is so important to our 

readiness, the Army National Guard last year was issued in excess 

of $350 of new equipment. Tha t brings our total equipm ent to 75 

percent of our requirements, and of this 75 percent, 99 percent of 

tha t equipment is deployable. We are in very good shape on the 

equipment.

Notwithstanding, we do have some shortages in some critical 

areas in equipment, but our overall picture looks good.

In the Air National Guard, this year, we are undergoing 13 

conversions to newer and more modern weapon systems. This is a 

great improvement to our structure. At the end of this year, we
197

will have only 24 of our squadrons that remain in old, obsolete 

aircraft.

Our budget request for 1980 addresses 6 additional conversions, 

and tha t will reduce the number to 18, only 20 percent of our fleet 

that will be in obsolete aircraft.

The committee would also be interested, I am sure, to know tha t 

the Guard has had a banner year in 1978 in the addressal of its 

State mission. During the year, we had 298 callups for 290,000 

mandays for which the State provided the budgetary support. They 

provided in excess of $6 million to support this state role.

With the equipment that came into our inventory, which I addressed a bit earlier, came a drastic and tremendous impact on our 

construction requirements, in that it requires new maintenance 

and storage facilities. It also requires new and advanced training 

facilities for this more sophisticated equipment.

So, this added to our previous backlog, we now have in our 

backlog of the Army $672 million. T hat is significant.

Our budget request for 1980 is $20 million. This represents 

almost a 62-percent reduction from the $52 million that the Congress appropriated for us in 1979. The $20 million in our request 

covers only 21 armory projects, 5 nonarmory projects. We will be 

doing this in 11 States and Puerto Rico. This is the smallest budget 

that we have had since the very early 1970’s.

We continue to perform in the Army National Guard at a very 

high rate of obligation. Last year, in 1978, we obligated 93 percent 

of the available funds. That is an all time high for us, and we are 

very proud of th at.

The $672 million in the backlog is of tremendous concern to us. 

It would require $60 million a year to even address the inflation 

and the cost escalation factor. So with the $20 million that we have 

requested for 1980, we will not make any impact on th e backlog for 

the Army National Guard.

Those are the general comments about the Army National 

Guard, and I will now ask General Conaway, the Deputy Director 

of the Air National Guard, to cover the Air National Guard construction budget request.

ir National Guard

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. JOHN B. CONAWAY. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

PREPARED STATEMENT

General Conaway. Thank you, General.

Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members, I have a formal 

statement, for the record, also, on behalf of the Air National 

Guard, if you would allow that.

Senator H uddleston. Your statement will be received and entered into the record, without objection.

[The statement follows:]

(199)
200

tatement of Bri g. Gen . John B. Conawa y

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee

It is again my pleasure, and privilege, to appear before this distinguished committee with the Air National Guard Milita ry Construction 

Request for fiscal year 1980. The projects in this request the will satisfy 

only a portion of Air Guard's most severe fa cility requirements. All are 

essential in the continuing program to modernize the weapon systems, 

training processes, and support functions required by the Air Guard's role in 

today's Total Force.

Success in this Total Force role demands the use of complex procedures, and state-of-the-art equipment. The lack of adequate facilitie s to 

support new weapon systems, and the continued deterioration and obsolescence of the existing physical plant will reduce the weapon system re liability, impair the recruiting and retention of personnel, and res trict the 

training required to sustain Air National Guard combat readiness.

The Air National Guard is very proud of its combat readiness, its 

genuine role in today's Total Air Force, and the fac t that thousands of its 

members are daily participating in such demanding missions as air defense, 

tac tical fighter, tac tical reconnaissance, strategic refueling, air lift, and 

rescue. During the past year, Air National Guard fighte r and reconnaissance air craft have made six deployments to Europe and one to Alaska 

without incident. While in Europe they participated in joint exercises with 

Allied Forces. In addition, Air National Guard tac tical fighter (A-7) units 

and tactica l a ir lift (C-130) units were deployed to Howard AB, Canal Zone 

on a rotational basis, to augment the active Air Force in support of 

Southern Command. Sixteen Air National Guard units participated in eight 

separate Red Flag exercises in Nevada. This is excellent training for both
201

aircrews and ground crews, but, in addition, it is a viable demonstration of 

Air Guard abilities to function in a hostile combat environment. The operational readiness inspection 100 percent pass rate of 1977 has continued 

through 1978, bringing the number of successful ORI's to 107 in 2 years, 

and clearly shows Air National Guard mission readiness measured against 

active Air Force crite ria .

The Air National Guard provides a significant share of the Air Force 

total combat capability. Some 60 percent of the USAF air defense capability; more than one-half of the tac tical reconnaissance; almost a third of 

the tac tical airlift; one quarter of the tac tical figh ter capability; and over 

60 percent of the tac tical air control system of the USAF are provided 

today by the Air National Guard. This has been made possible through a 

continuing program of equipment and weapon system modernization. During the period FY 1975 through FY 1980, almost 75 percent of the Air 

Guard flying units (67 of 91) will have been upgraded. In spite of this 

modernization, 20 percent of the Air National Guard flying units will con tinue in FY 1980 with weapon sysems nearing obsolescence.

The new or modified facilitie s on which the weapon system conversions were directly dependent, for the most part, have been made available 

through our annual Milita ry Construction Programs. However, the total 

requirement for facilitie s in which to train our people, maintain our equipment, support our functions, and mobilize our forces remains at a very high 

level. The total fa cility requirement after the FY 1980 program is completed will have grown to an unprecedented $378 million. A large portion of 

the Air National Guard is still operating in inadequate or obsolete facilitie s 

to perform their mission and support functions.

The Air National Guard has been able to respond favorably and 

rapidly to vital weapon system modifications and conversions, including
202

last minute program revisions, solely through your support of our Military 

Construction Programs and the fle xibility which you have perm itted us 

through the lump sum authorization and appropriation process. To preserve 

this privilege of being able to react quickly to satisfy urgent, unanticipated 

requirements, the current procedures of clearing projects with congressional committees prior to invitation for bids, will be closely followed. 

Cost estimates adjusted according to fina l design, will be used in the clearance requests. Only absolutely essential changes in the Air National Guard 

program have been and w ill be made.

REQUEST FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATION

The Air National Guard request for our FY 1980 Milita ry Construction Program has been limited to $30 m illio n, a 33 percent reduction from 

the $44.75 million appropriated last year. It includes $23.5 million for 

major construction, $3.5 million for minor construction, and $3.0 million 

for planning and design. This program will provide for only a portion of the 

most severe of our facility requirements needed to maintain unit combat 

readiness, with many mission related projects remaining unfunded. The 

program is composed of 48 major projects at 33 locations in 28 States. It 

includes 28 projects at 22 installations supporting weapon system conversion, equipment modernization, or unit relocation. All projects incorporate 

modern engineering techniques, coupled with energy saving designs, equipment, and materials.

Our FY 1978 and FY 1979 programs are progressing satisfactorily. 

The majority of our FY 1978 MCP is under construction with the small 

number of projects remaining, currently in the procurement phase. The 

fir st increment of the FY 1979 MCP containing $21 million, or over 50
203

percent of the program, also is in the procurement phase. The second 

increment covering the remainder of the program, has been submitted for 

congressional clearance.

Inflation and other cost increases experienced during FY 1978 required that project programmed amounts should be revised. Five major factors contributed to this cost growth. These were: extreme shortages and 

large increases in cost of certain construction materials / higher than anticipated rates of inflation experienced on both labor and materials I increases 

in freigh t and shipping costs / and a construction season during FY 1978 

saturated with work. There are no indications of relief during the FY 1979 

season and beyond. As a result, the estimated costs for all projects for FY 

1979 and later, have been evaluated and necessary adjustments have been 

made to obtain correlation with current construction industry indicators.

The Air National Guard end-FY 1979 construction backlog of $330 

million reported in last year's hearings has grown to the previously mentioned $378 million . This growth has come about because of the rapid 

increases in construction costs, an unforeseen aircraft conversion with 

associated unit move, and newly identified projects related to facility 

obsolescence and deterioration.

Even though costs have risen across the board, we continue to find 

the policy of using the State U.S. Property and Fiscal Officers, whenever 

feasible, for project design, procurement and construction management to 

be responsive, efficien t, and cost effective. The services of the Army 

Corps of Engineers and the Navy Facilities Engineering Command will continue to be used on installations where these agencies are managing construction.
204

COMMITTEE SUPPORT

This committee has provided Military Construction support that has 

been highly responsive to Air National Guard construction needs. Your 

recognition and support of the Air National Guard Military Construction 

requirements, and the privilege of the lump sum system of authorization 

and appropriation, have substantially assisted us in rapidly achieving unit 

combat readiness and in maintaining a high state of overall ANG readiness, 

which has become the hallmark of the Air National Guard.

The FY 1980 Military Construction appropriation request of $30 

million will help us meet only part of our most severe fa cility requirements. Even w ith approval of this amount the overall backlog will continue 

to grow and mission related projects will remain unfunded.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement in support of the Air 

National Guard fiscal year 1980 Military Construction Request. This 

committee's interest and support of our growing needs is sincerely appreciated.
205

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF BRIG. GEN. JOHN B. CONAWAY

B rig a d ie r G ener al Jo hn B. Conavay was bor n in H en de rs on , K en tu ck y, on 

23 Au gu st 193A- A fte r g ra d u ati n g from Bo sse High S chool, E v a n s v il le , 

In d ia n a , in 19 52 , he att en d ed th e U n iv e rsit y of E v an sv il le and re c e iv e d 

a B ach elo r of Scie nce deg re e in B usi ness A d m in is tr a ti o n in 19 56 . He 

co n ti n u ed g ra d u ate work a t th e U n iv e rsit y o f L o u is v il le Sc ho ol o f B u si ness 

and th e U n iv e rsit y o f Ke ntu cky Sc ho ol .of B u sin ess. In 19 75 , he re c e iv e d 

a m aste rs degre e in Management and Human R e la ti o n s a t W eb ster C o ll e g e ,

S t. L o u is , M is so u ri .

Whil e a tt e n d in g th e U n iv e rsit y o f E v a n s v il le , G en er al Conavay e n te re d 

th e ROTC c ad e t pr og ram and upon g ra d u ati o n was co mmiss ione d a se co nd 

lie u te n a n t in th e A ir Fo rc e on 4 Ju ne 19 56 . Upon com ple ti on o f un d erg ra d u ate p i lo t tr a in in g a t G re e n v il le AFB, M is s is sip p i in 19 57 , he th en 

a tt e n d ed Advance d Combat Crew T ra in in g a t P e rrin AFB, T ex as, g ra d u a ti n g 

in 1958 . He was th en ass ig ned as a F—102 F ig h te r I n te r c e p to r P i l o t in 

th e A ir D ef en se Command a t K. I . Sawyer AFB and K in ch el oe AFB, M ic hig an .

In I9 60 G ener al Conaway Jo in ed th e West V ir g in ia A ir N a ti o n a l Gu ard as 

a SA-16 a i r c r a f t p i l o t per fo rm in g a s p e c ia l fo rc e s o p e ra ti o n s m is sio n .

In 1963 he tr a n s f e r r e d to th e Ke ntuc ky A ir N a ti o n a l Guard as a RB-57 

p i lo t and in 1965 became an a i r te c h n ic ia n f ly in g tr a in in g in s t r u c t o r in 

o p e ra tio n s . He v as c a ll e d to a c tiv e duty w it h th e Ken tuck y A ir N a ti o n a l 

Guard in 1968 and se rv ed in A la sk a, Panama , Ja pan and K ore a. Upon 

d e a c ti v a ti o n in 196 9 he re tu rn e d to th e Ken tu ck y A ir N a ti o n a l Guard as 

O p era ti o n s O f f ic e r . Du rin g th e nex t fo u r y e a rs G en er al Conaway co m pl et ed 

USAF Commanders S a fe ty Sc ho ol , 19 69 ; A ir Command and S ta f f C o ll e g e , 19 71 ;

A ir U n iv e rsit y Commanders S chool, 19 72 ; and I n d u s tr ia l C oll ege o f th e 

Armed F o rc es, 19 73 .

On 22 O ct ober 19 72 , G en er al Conaway was ap p o in te d as A ir Commander o f th e 

Ken tuck y A ir N a ti o n a l Gu ard. On Febru ary 19 75 , he was pr om oted to 

C o lo n el. He se rv ed as th e Vice Commander o f th e 12 3r d T a c tic a l Re conn a is sa n c e Wing whi ch h as u n its in K en tu ck y, A rk ansa s, Nev ad a, an d Id ah o . 

P re v io u s ass ig n m en ts In c lu d e , Wing D ire c to r o f O p e ra ti o n s, Wing C hie f o f 

S a fe ty , Wing C hie f o f S ta n d a rd iz a ti o n , Gro up Commander, Group De pu ty 

Co:i.aa nder fo r O p era ti o n s and Sq ua dr on O p e ra ti o n s O f f ic e r .

G ener al Conaway was prom ote d to B rig a d ie r G ener al on 29 March 197 7 an d 

became De puty D ir e c to r , Air N a ti o n a l Gu ard on 1 A p ril 19 77 .

G ener al Conaway i6 a command p i l o t w it h 4 ,8 00 h ours o f f l i g h t ti m e . H is 

aw ar ds and d e c o ra ti o n s in clu d e th e Leg io n o f M e rit , Armed Forc es M e rit o rio u s 

S e rv ic e M ed al, A ir Forc e Com mendation M ed al, Armed F o rc es E x p ed it io n a ry 

M ed al, Combat R eadin ess Nod al , Armed F o rc es R es er ve M ed al, N a ti o n a l D ef en se 

S e rv ic e M ed al, and Ke ntucky D is ti n g u is h e d S e rv ic e M ed al.

41 -6 38 0 - 7 9 - 1 4
206

General Conaway. The Air National Guard request for fiscal 

year 1980 construction program has been limited to $30 million. 

This is a 33-percent reduction from th e $44.75 million appropriated 

last year. This budget includes $23.5 million for major construction, 

$3.5 million for minor construction, and $3 million for planning 

and design.

This program will satisfy only a portion of our most severe 

facility requirements needed to maintain unit combat readiness, 

with several mission related projects remaining unfunded.

The program is composed of 48 major projects at 33 locations in 

28 States. It includes 28 projects at 22 installations supporting 

current weapon system conversions, equipment modernization and 

unit relocations.

The size of our request is very meaningful, particularly when the 

cost escalation in the construction industry is applied to the Air 

National Guard’s $330 million backlog that we reported last year 

at the hearing. The cost growth alone, due to inflation, is nearly 

$40 million. This cost escalation of our construction backlog is $16.5 

million greater than our entire major construction request for this 

year.

The c urrent facilities that were designed to meet the state-of-thear t technology of 20 to 30 years ago cannot, unde r the most au stere 

conditions, satisfy the needs of our modern weapon systems.

The use of present day complicated, high-voltage avionic test 

equipment in cramped and environmentally uncontrolled facilities 

will not only be hazardous to our maintenance personnel, but 

would also eventually lead to degradation of our weapon systems.

Many of our existing squadron operation facilities at units converting from single-place to two-place airc raft provide less than 

half the space required to obtain and sustain aircrew readiness.

Sir, the success of every function that the National Guard performs in its total air force role demands the use of complex procedures and modern equipment. I might add that the Air National 

Guard has been able to respond favorably and rapidly to vital 

weapon system modifications and conversions, including last 

minute revisions primarily through your support of our military 

construction programs, and the flexibility which you have perm itted us through the lump sum authorization and appropriation process.

We strongly desire to preserve this privilege of being able to 

react quickly to satisfy urgent and unanticipated requirements. 

The current procedure of clearing projects with congressional committees prior to invitation for bids will be closely followed.

Cost estimates, adjusted according to final design, will be used in 

the clearance requests. Only absolutely essential changes in the 

Air National Guard program have been and will be made. This 

procedure has helped us to achieve the combat readiness state that 

the Air National Guard has reached, and helps it maintain its 

overall high state of readiness.

The physical plant, when repaired and updated, greatly enhances 

the recruiting and retention, and the training of our personnel. 

These a re restricted, of course, whenever we have a curtailm ent of 

our military construction program.
207

The high state of overall Air National Guard readiness has 

become a hallm ark tha t we are proud of.

The fiscal y ear 1980 military construction appropriation request 

of $30 million will help us meet only part of our most severe 

facility requirements. Even with approval of this amount, our overall backlog will grow to an unprecedented $378 million, and mission-related projects will remain unfunded.

Mr. Chairman, if you have no objection, I have one change to our 

fiscal year 1980 MCANG list of projects that I would like entered 

for the record. We would like to add project: site preparation, 

access roads, p arkin g and utilities; Bradley Field, Conn.; programed 

amount, $525,000. To provide space in the program to accommodate 

this change, we would like to remove project: base engineer maintenance facility; General Mitchell Field, Wis.; programed amount, 

$525,000.

The Bradley Field project was inad vertently omitted from the 

original project list and was assumed during subsequent program 

reviews to be included in the separate Bradley Field projects. It 

must be added to the Bradley construction package to provide the 

necessary construction support. The Mitchell Field project will be 

deferred to fiscal y ear 1981 unless other funds become available in 

the interim.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my state ment in support of the Air 

National Guard fiscal year 1980 military construction request. We 

greatly appreciate your committee’s support of our construction 

budget last year and in previous years. Your inte rest in our growing needs is certainly appreciated.

Senator H uddleston. T hank you very much.

We will move on to General Mohr.

rmy Reserve

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. HENRY MOHR. CHIEF. ARMY RESE RVE

PREPARED STATEMENT

General Mohr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished 

members of this committee.

Mr. Chairm an, I also have a formal statement, for the record, 

and with your permission I would like to submit that for the 

record, and speak from notes?

Senator Huddleston. Without objection, it will be inserted in the 

record in its entirety.

[The stateme nt follows:]

Statement of Ma j. Gen . Henry Mohr

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to appear again 

before this Committee to present the fiscal year 1980 Military Construction Army 

Reserve budget request.

As you know, the established Army Reserve mission is to furnish, in the event of 

war or national emergency, and at such other times as national security may 

require, units organized, trained, and equipped for rapid mobilization, expansion, 

and deployment.

These units are to be of types and numbers to meet the requirements of the total 

force—each with its own wartime mission. In addition, the Army Reserve is tasked 

to provide, through the Individual Ready Reserve, qualified personnel for the Total 

Army. These personnel are to be used as fillers or to replace combat losses. That 

individual manpower pool is badly depleted since discontinuation of Selective Service. No feasible solution has been found to the shortage of about one-half million 

needed in the early days of a major conflict.

I have stated before the Armed Services Committees of Congress tha t incentives 

for enlistment and retention similar to those provided long ago to the active forces, 

plus increased attention to family and employer support, are key elements tha t are 

necessary for our Selected Reserve strength in Reserve units to rise to the 260,000 

men and women Congress has stated is required in Army Reserve units in peacetime to meet our wartime structure requirement of 276,000. It is obviously essential 

that adequate train ing and maintenance facilities also must be provided. Army 

Reserve centers with appropriate organizational maintenance shops are necessary to 

provide the proper environment for individual and unit training, adequate storage 

and maintenance of equipment and vehicles and for security of weapons and other 

equipment. The Army Reserve construction program is programed to provide the 

needed facilities, on a priority basis, within available funding.

Today we have a backlog of $715 million of needed construction involving over 800 

of the more than 1,100 Reserve centers and maintenance facilities. The magnitude 

of this backlog adversely impacts on our ability to be a ready part of the total force. 

Facilities alone do not insure a ready force. The lack of adquate train ing facilities 

does affect readiness by hampering the commander’s ability to conduct proper 

training and to m aintain his equipment. Our prognosis for the construction backlog 

is not optimistic. It is expected_ that the backlog will increase. The level of funding 

appropriated in fiscal year 1979 and the amount included in the fiscal year 1980 

request will not accommodate current requirem ents tha t are about $62 million per 

year to stay even. Below tha t level of funding adds to the backlog of required 

construction and retards readiness of the Army Reserve.

Our request for fiscal year 1980 totals $25 million. This is $12.1 million less than 

that appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 1979. The total request will provide 

*19,824,000 for major construction: $2,085,000 for minor construction; and $3,091,000 

for planning and design work.

(209)
210

Within these constraints, we are proposing 13 major projects in 10 states. These 

major construction projects include five new centers, thr ee expansion s and/or alt erations to existing facilities, four mainte nance facilities with equipm ent storage sites, 

and a field trai nin g site improvement. Two of th e new c enters a re join t projects, one 

of which is with the Nati onal Guard and the oth er is with the Marine Corps 

Reserve. Detailed descriptions of the projects we are proposing for construction are 

included in the justification books which have been provided to the Committee.

Minor construction will provide for security, energy conservation, pollution abatement, health and safety projects.

The design effort is for project planning and design of the fiscal year 1981 

program and a portion of the fiscal yea r 1982 program. This effo rt must be started 

in fiscal year 1980 to insu re th at our projects will be designed and ready for bid, 

once funds have been app ropriated and authorized by the Congress.

The effects of inflation have an adverse impact on our ability to execute the 

program. As an example, bids received and contrac ts awarded on eight projects 

since the sta rt of th is fiscal yea r (1 October 1978) have averaged ten percent more 

tha n the cur rent working estimate. In addition, we have requested, or are in the 

process of requesting, deficiency authorizations on four addition al projects where 

the cost increases average 48 percen t more tha n orig inally estim ated. If this trend 

continues, we will be unab le to awa rd cont racts for one or more of the rema ining 

fiscal year 1978 projects which are not yet awarded. We will not then be able to 

accomplish all of the projects we have identified in our justification data book for 

fiscal year 1979.

Notw ithstandin g problems we face, I wish to express my appreciation for the 

improvements to facilities that are and have been made possible by the actions of 

this Committee. I again seek your support of our fiscal year 1980 construction 

program. If the re are questions, I will be happy to answer them at this time.

MISSION OF ARMY RESERVE

General Mohr. Sir, it is a pleasure to appear again before this 

committee, to present the fiscal year 1980 military construction 

Army Reserve budget request.

As you know, the established Army Reserve mission is to furnish, in the event of war or national emergency, and at such other 

times as national security requires, units, organized, trained, and, 

equipped for rapid mobilization, expansion and deployment.

We have, in my opinion, become a genuine part, an integral part 

of the total Army and the total force. We have made excellent 

gains in areas involving unit readiness. Our units are of all types 

and numbers to meet the requirements of the total force, each with 

its own wartime mission.

In addition, the Army Reserve is tasked to provide, through the 

individual Ready Reserve, qualified personnel for the total Army. 

These personnel are to be used as fillers to form units that are not 

now on the ground, or to replace combat losses early in any future 

conflict.

That individual manpower pool is badly depleted since discontinuation of Selective Service. No feasible solution has yet been found 

to the shortage of about one-half million needed in the early days 

of a major conflict.

However, due to management initiatives, the strength of the 

individual Ready Reserve, I should report with some pleasure, and 

I am sure the committee will be pleased, has been increasing. It is 

now up to about 180,000, about 42,000 of those being officer personnel.

I have stated before the Armed Services Committees of the Congress tha t incentives for enlistm ent and retention similar to those 

provided long ago to the Active Forces, plus increased attention to 

family and employer support, are key elements. These are necesI t
211

sary for our selected strength reserves to rise to the 260,000 men 

and women Congress has stated are required in peacetime to meet 

our wartim e struc ture requirement in th e vicinity of 276,000 

Our strength drops over the past years have seemed to level off, 

and I can report to you that we have shown gains in our strength 

in units in the last 2 months. It is obviously essential tha t adequate 

training and maintenance facilities must be provided. Army Reserve centers with appropriate organizational maintenance shops 

are necessary to provide the proper environment for individual and 

unit training, adequate storage and maintenance of the equipment, 

and vehicles, and for the security of weapons and other equipment.

The Army Reserve construction program is designed to provide 

the needed facilities on a priority basis within available funding.

Today we have a backlog of $715 million of needed military 

construction, involving over 800 of the more tha n 1,100 Reserve 

centers and maintenance facilities that we have today. The magnitude of this backlog adversely impacts on our ability to be a ready 

part of the total force.

Facilities alone, of course, do not assure a ready force. But the 

lack of adequate train ing facilities does affect readiness by hampe ring the commander’s ability to conduct proper training and to 

maintain his equipment.

Our prognosis for the construction backlog is not optimistic at 

curren t funding levels. It is expected tha t the backlog will increase. 

The level of funding appropriated in fiscal year 1979, and the 

amount included in fiscal year 1980 request will not accommodate 

the current construction requirements that are about $62 million 

per year merely to stay even. Below that level of funding adds to 

the backlog of required construction and retard s readiness of the 

Army Reserve.

Our request for fiscal year 1980 totals $25 million. This is $12.1 

million less than that appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 

1979. The total request will provide $19,824,000 for major construction, $2,085,000 for minor construction, and $3,091,000 for planning 

and design work.

Within these constraints, we are proposing 13 major projects for 

10 States. These major construction projects include five new centers, three expansions and/o r alterations to existing facilities, four 

maintenance facilities with equipment storage sites, and a field 

training site improvement.

Two of th e new centers are joint projects, one of which is with 

the National Guard, and the other is with Marine Corps Reserve. 

Detailed descriptions of the projects we are proposing for construction are included in the justification books which have been provided to the committee.

Minor construction, of course, provides for security, energy conservation, pollution abate ment, health and safety projects.

The design effort is for project planning and design of the fiscal 

year 1981 program, and a portion of the fiscal year 1982 program. 

This effort must be started in fiscal year 1980 to assure that our 

projects will be designed and ready for bid, once funds have been 

appropriated and authorized by the Congress.

The effects of inflation have had an adverse impact on our ability to execute the program. As an example, bids received and con-
212

trac ts awarded on these projects since the sta rt of this fiscal year, 

October 1, 1978, have averaged 10 percent more than the current 

working estimates. In addition we have requested, or are in the 

process of requesting, deficiency authorizations on four additional 

projects where the cost increases average 48 percent more than 

originally estimated.

If this trend continues, we will be unable to award contracts for 

one or more of th e remaining fiscal year 1978 projects which are 

not yet awarded. We will not then be able to accomplish all the 

projects we have identified in our justification data book for fiscal 

year 1979.

Notwithstanding problems we face, we have made a lot of progress, and I wish to express appreciation for the improvements to 

facilities tha t are and have been made possible by actions of this 

committee.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this committee might be interested in 

knowing tha t funds Congress has authorized for the Reserve are 

well invested. Many testimonials have been expressed by active 

Army commanders and evaluators about Reserve components, tha t 

is the Guard and Reserve.

Through the record of our performance during the course of un it 

training in the last year, the image of the Army Reserve is definitely becoming a positive one. Typical of these comments on the 

image tha t we are attaining, are comments included in the report 

by the Deputy Chief of Operations, Headquarters, U.S. ArmyEurope, and I quote:

Misconceptions entertained by active personnel regarding Reserve components 

capabilities prior to their association, were quickly dispelled as Reserve component 

units performed assignments in a superior manner.

This pertained to the training of our units in Europe during this 

last year.

CORRE SPONDENCE

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would also like to enter 

into the record, for the committee’s review, a letter from General 

Blanchard, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Army in Europe, to the Chief 

of Staff tha t includes an evaluation of Reserve Force perfomance 

and the value of our training in Europe this year.

Senator Huddleston. Without objection, th at will be entered into 

the record.

[The information follows:]
etter from George S.Blanchard

27 Decem ber 1978

G en er al B er nar d W. Rog er s 

C hie f of S ta f f 

U nited S ta te s Army 

W as hi ngt on, D.C. 2031 0

De ar C en era l R ogers :

The purp ose o f t h i s l e t t e r is to in fo rm you o f th e succ esrs o f th e FY 73 

R ese rv e Com pon ent (RC) De plo ym ent T ra in in g Prog ram in USAREUR. T his 

p a s t year we h o st ed 60 hig h p r i o r i t y RC u n its fo r th e ir an nual a c tiv e 

duty t r a i n in g . O v e ra ll, th ese u n its im p ro v ed /m ain ta in ed t h e i r le v e ls 

o f r e a d in e s s , hel ped USAREb'R m a in ta in i t s r e a d in e s s p o s tu re , and ea rn ed 

ou r rene wed r e s p e c t f o r t h e i r d e d ic a tio n and p ro fe s s io n a lis m . The comm en ts o f some USAREUR/RC u n it comm anders ar.d e v a lu a to rs a t In c lo s u re 1, 

and th e com p ara ti v e re a d in e s s d a ta a t I n c lo s u re 2 t e s t i f y to th e su c ­

c e s s o f t h i s y e a r 's pr og ra m .

Using th e DA o r ig in a te d " g a in in g command" c o n c e p t, some RC u n its re vie w 

and update d th e p la n s and SOPs o f t h e i r USAREUR S p b n so r- u n it -s -w h il e 

t a i l o r i n g t h e i r own p la n s to su p p o rt USAREUR's m is s io n . T h eir per fo rm ­

an ce o f t h i s ta s k was in dee d im p re s s iv e .

We a ls o o b ta in e d en coura gin g r e s u l t s fro m th e p i l o t pr og ram f o r th e 

t r a in in g o f lo w er p r i o r i t y R es er ve Comp onent comb at u n i t s . In th e moot 

p r io r to t r a i n in g , th e r e c r u itin g e f f o r t s o f th e s e u n its r e s u lte d in an 

18.6 p e rc e n t in c re a s e in p e rs o n n e l s tr e n g th . W hile th ey we re h e re , th e 

u n its f a m ilia r iz e d th em se lv es w it h f i e l d o p e ra tio n s on th e l.'ATO b a t t l e ­

f i e l d . S ix ty p e rc e n t o f th e se u n its im pr ov ed t h e i r re a d in e s s c o n d it io n 

w h il e o th e r s m ain ta in ed th e ir p re v io u s re a d in e s s l e v e l s .

Im prov ed re a d in e s s is th e ta n g ib le b e n e f it o f ou r OCOhTS pr ogra m . A 

s i g n i f i c a n t in ta n g ib le b e n e f it d e riv e d fro m t h is pr og ra m in USAhSbK is 

th e m utu al re s p e c t dev el oped be tw ee n a c tiv e an I RC u n it p e rs o n n e l. T. e 

RC u n i t s ' p r o fe s s io n a l co m pe te nc e ha s s tr e n g th e n e d our co n fi d e n c e in 

t h e i r a b i l i t y to m ee t t h e i r w ar tim e co m m itm en ts . I b e li e v e th e CCObb'S 

R ese rv e Com ponent De ploy ment T ra in in g Pr og ra m i s a r e a l w in n er, and th i 

FY we w ill ex pa nd th e pr og ram to ab o u t 75 PC u n i t s . V? w ill g iv e cu r 

t o t a l su p p o rt to t h e i r tr a in in g as we ha ve In th e p a s t, and we w ill 

a p p re c ia te you r co n ti n u ed su p p o rt f o r c o n ti n u a n c e o f t h i s v i t a l p ro ­

gram in FY £0 and be yo nd . 

S in c e re ly
214

. :

 ■ COMMENTS

Cocmiandcr, 21st Sl’PCCM. ’’Re se rv e Com pon ent (RC) u n its ’ ha ve flow n over fro m CONUS, 

w it hout eq ui pm en t, as se m bl ed a t 2 1 st SUPCOM a c t i v i t i e s an d commenced p ro d u c ti v e 

o p e ra ti o n s a t once. They b e n e f ite d from e x te n siv e hands- on e x p erie n ce m a in ta in in g 

a wide v a rie ty o f m ilita r y equip m ent. T his i s an e x p e rie n c e th e y do not norm ally 

en jo y , e ith e r duri ng we eke nd a ss e m b li e s o r d u ri n g a n n u al t r a in in g . As a r e s u l t of 

th e FY 78 OCONUS prog ram s u c c e ss , we a rc in c re a s in g our sp o n so rs h ip fro m 14 to 

24 RC u n it s duri ng FY 79 . V'e a re p r e s e n tly d ev elo p in g a tr a in in g pr eg ra m wh ich 

w ill be c h a ll en g in g and b e n e f ic ia l to th e KC u n i t s , 2 1 st SUPCOM an d USARLUR. Some 

RC u n its w ill assume th e m is sio n s o f t h e i r sp o n so ri n g u n i t s , mak ing tim e a v a i la b le fo r s e v e ra l com bat s e r v ic e s u p p o rt u n its to e x e c u te ARTEPS."

U nit E v a lu a to r, 36 31 st HEM Co . "As an in n o v a ti v e appro ach to sp o n so ri n g a RC u n it, 

th e 66th tf a in t Sn re lo c a te d a company to th e f i e l d fo r two w ee ks , le a v in g th e 

3631s t to assume th e co m pa ny 's m is s io n .' I t was hope d th a t th ey could pr odu ce enough 

wo rk to keep our m ai nte nan ce b a ck lo g from in c re a s in g . To our s u r p r is e , th e 36 31 st 

d ra m a ti c a ll y re du ce d th e b a ck lo g in ev ery m ain te nan ce co m m od ity. "

U nit E v a lu a to r. 90 0t h »!fM Co . "U n it p e rs o n n e l d is p la y e d an e x tr em ely hig h le v e l of 

te c h n ic a l e x p e rti s e in a ss ig n e d KOS. P e rs o n n e l wer e a b le to acc om plish d i f f i c u l t 

ta s k s w ith a minimum of s u p e r v is io n . In some in s ta n c e s , w ork lo ads pro gra mm ed to 

l a s t a week we re acc om pl is he d in a s in g le d a y ." . '

Commander, 1/ 13 Tnf P.n, 8 th In f D iv , Host U nit fo r Co C, 3/1 8 I n f .

"W hile th e Res er ve and sp onso r u n it d id not a c t iv e ly conduct j o i n t 't r a i n i n g , th e pro 

fe s sio n a li s m dem onst ra te d by th e r e s e r v i s t s ga ve t h i s b a tta lio n a more a p p re c ia ti v e 

in s ig h t to th e c a p a b ilit ie s of th e R es er ve Co mp onents an d s e t a h ig h e r p e rs o n a l 

re a d in e ss goal fo r th e A cti v e Army s o ld ie r to s t r i v e to a c h ie v e ."

Commander, 11 th A v ia ti o n Group . " In 19 78 , RC a v ia tio n u n its p a r tic ip a te d in a 

REFORCER e x e rc is e on a la rg e s c a le fo r th a f i r s t ti m e . I t wa s a w ort hw hile le a r n ­

in g e xperi ence fo r tiie R es erv e Com ponent and a c tiv e comp on en t u n its . A ll a c tiv e 

duty a v ia to rs were very im pre ss ed w it h th e p ro fe s s io n a li s m an d c a r p a b tli ti c s d i s ­

pla yed by our Res er ve Compo nent a v ia to r s ."

Commander, 13th E ngin ee r B ri g a d e . "D uri ng FY 78 RC u n its p ro v id ed t h i s b ri g a d e 

v a lu a b le a s s is ta n c e in p la n n in g w ar tim e re q u ir e m e n ts an d e x e r c is in g a sy st em v i t a l 

to USAREUR e n g in eers in w art im e. The b ri g a d e has re q u e s te d an d re c e iv e d ap p ro v a l 

f o r RC u n it s in FY 79 so as to c o n ti n u e e s s e n t i a l w art im e p la n n in g . OCONUS t r a i n ­

in g c o n tr ib u te s to th e re a d in e s s p o s tu re of USAREUR and mus t c o n ti n u e ." 

«

Commander, 16 8th Ennr Cn. " I c o n sid e r th e OCONUS tr a i n i n g p e ri o d to ha ve be en 

very su c c e ss fu l and b e n e f ic ia l to th e 16 St h C ro up . The m is sio n a ss ig n e d was r e a l 

an d a ff o rd ed a tr a in in g o p p o rtu n ity to r s t a f f p la n n in g im p o ssib le to d u p li c a te 

in CONUS. The p la n n in g re q u ir e d fo r th e move i t s e l f was a v a lu a b le tr a in in g e x e rc is

Commander, 36 69 th I'SM C f. " I f e e l t h i s AT p e ri o d h o t bee n th e mo st e d u c a ti o n a l 

and m ea ni ng fu l sin c e I ha ve bee n commander th e s e p a s t fo u r y e a r s . The su p p o rt 

re c eiv ed was th e b e st re c e iv e d s in c e 1 ha ve commanded th e u n it. We h e ar o fte n 

ab ou t th e 'One Army C oncept' I f e e l t h i s y e a r we saw t h i s concept come tr u e , an d 

i t w ill ha ve a la s t in g i r r r e s f j n n on e v ery r.omhar of th e 36 69 th V7K C o. "
215

Comp arison o f FY 77 and FY 73 Data

f

TRAINING

f o r Re serve Component U n it s T ra in in g

* l n USAREUR in FY 73

%

READINESS CONDITION

*

C-1 . C-2 C-3 C-4

FY 77 34% 38% 19% 9%

FT 73* 55% 30% 15% 0%

•KOS READINESS CONDITIONS

. /.

C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4

FY 77 ' - 43% 30% 20% 7%

FY 78 59% 22% 15% 4%

Per so nn el in cre a se s in c e FY 77 - 5 .9%

Perso nn el 

Gain s la s t 

12 Months

Per so nn el 

Lo sses la s t

12 Months

1800

>

1700

RC U n it s are a t 95. 3% o f a u th o riz e d s tre n g th :

A uth orize d Ass ig ne d

S tr e n g th S tr e n g th

5635 5425

* REECC., f o r FY 73 a re ba se d on AT E v a lv a lo r's as se ssmen t 

re v is e d by th e ARR. . ,

,.h ich 3/ b
216

General Mohr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I thank this committee for its tremendous support and 

what you have made possible for us to do. Again, we seek your 

support in the budget that we have submitted. If there are questions, we are prepared to answer them at your convenience.

Senator H uddleston . We will have questions of the entire panel 

in a few minutes. But now we will move on to Rear Adm. Thomas 

A. Kamm, Deputy Director of Naval Reserve.
aval Reserve

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. THOMAS A. KAMM. DEPUTY DIRECTOR. 

NAVAL RESERVE

PREPARED STATEMENT

A dm iral Kam m. Good m or ni ng , Sen at or . I als o ha ve a fo rm al 

st at em en t, w hi ch I wo uld lik e to en te r in to th e record.

Sen at or H ud dleston . W itho ut ob jec tio n, it will be in se rt ed in th e 

re co rd in its en tire ty .

[Th e sta te m en t follow s:]

(217)
218

tat ement of Rear Ad m . Thomas A. amm

MR CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:

IT IS MY PLEASURE TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TO PRES ENT THE MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS OF THE NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS RESERVE FOR FIS CA L YEAR 1 9 8 0 .

OUR REQUEST TOTALS $1 5 MIL LION OF WHICH $ 1 2 .2 9 MIL LION IS FOR 

SPEC IF IC PR OJ EC TS , $ 0 .5 MIL LION IS FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PR OJ EC TS , AND $ 2 .2 1 MIL LIO N IS FOR MINOR CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING AND DE SIG N. TH IS REQUEST IS FOR $ 6 .8 5 MILLION LESS THAN 

THE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY THE CONGRESS FOR FISC AL YEAR 1 9 7 9 .

TH IS FIS CA L YEAR 1980 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION NAVAL RESERVE PROGRAM INCLUDES FIV E PRO JEC TS TOTALLING $ 6 .9 8 MIL LIO N IN SUPPORT 

OF THE NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS AIR RESERVE AND THREE PRO JEC TS 

TOTALLING $ 5 .3 1 MILLION IN SUPPORT OF THE NAVAL SURFACE AND 

MARINE CORPS GROUND RESERVE.

THE NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS AIR RESERVE PORTION OF THE PROGRAM 

INCLUDES ONE PRO JEC T FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING APRON AND ELIM INA TIO N OF SAFETY CR ITER IA VIO LATIO NS AT THE NAVAL RESERVE 

AI R DETACHMENT POINT MUGU, CA LIFO RN IA; ONE PRO JEC T FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A JE T ENGINE TES T CELL AT THE NAVAL AIR STATION 

DALLAS, TEXAS; ONE PRO JEC T FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF AIRCRAFT 

MAINTENANCE FA C IL IT IE S AT THE NAVAL AI R STATION WILLOW GROVE, 

PENNSYLVANIA; AND TWO PRO JEC TS AT THE NAVAL AI R STATION NEW 

ORLEANS LOU ISIA NA WHICH WILL IMPROVE THE ELE CTRICAL DI ST RIBU ­

TION SYSTEM AT THAT INSTALLATION AND IMPROVE AN EX IST ING UNACCOMPANIED PERSONNEL HOUSING FA CI LITY TO MEET CRIT ER IA . ONE 

ENERGY CONSERVATION PRO JEC T IS ALSO INCLUDED IN SUPPORT OF THE 

NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS AI R RESER VE.

THE NAVAL SURFACE AND MARINE CORPS GROUND RESERVE PORTION OF 

THE PROGRAM INCLUDES THREE PROJECTS TO PROV IDE MODERN AND EFFECTIVE FA C IL IT IE S FOR THE TRAIN ING AND ADM INIST RATION OF RESE RV IST S AT EBENSBURG, PENNSYLVA NIA; MIDDLETOWN, NEW JER SEY AND 

KNOXVILLE, TENN ESSEE. TWO ENERGY CONSERVATION PRO JEC TS ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN SUPPORT OF THE SURFACE AND GROUND FOR CES .

$ ONE MIL LIO N IS REQUESTED TO FUND MINOR CONSTRUCTION PROJE CT S COSTING UNDER $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 EACH. $ 1 .2 1 MILLION ARE REQUESTED 

TO FUND PRO JEC T PLANNING AND DE SIG N. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJE CT S PROPOSED IN TH IS PROGRAM ARE EXPECTED TO REMIAN FIRM .
219

THE BACKLOG OF CONSTRUCTION DEFI CIE NCIE S FOR NAVAL AND 

MARINE CORPS RESERVE FA C IL IT IE S TOTALS $ 1 9 9 MI LL ION. THIS 

BACKLOG REP RES ENT S NECESSARY CONSTRUCTION TO MEET REQUIREMENTS GENERATED BY IMPROVED EQUIPMENT AND TRA INING METHODOLOGY 

WHICH REQUIRE MORE SOPH IST ICAT ED FA C IL IT IE S SUPPOR T; THE CONTINU ED DET ERIORA TION OF OUR OVERAGE F A C IL IT IE S ; AND THE EFF ECTS 

OF INF LATIO N ON CONSTRUCTION COSTS IN RECENT YEARS. THIS FY 

1980 PROGRAM IS FORMULATED TO PROVIDE A REQUIRED UPGRADING OF 

INADEQUATE RESERVE FA C IL IT IE S AND TO IMPROVE THE MOBILIZATION 

REA DINESS ON THE NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS RESERVE.

THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE POLIC Y OF 

JO IN T UT IL IZ ATI ON OF RESERVE F A C IL IT IE S . AG AIN , THIS YEA R, ALL 

OF THE PR OJECTS PROPOSED ARE FOR SIT E S JO INTL Y UT IL IZ ED BY THE 

NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS RES ERV E, WITH RESERVE COMPONENTS OF THE 

OTHER SE RV ICES OR WITH UN ITS OF THE REGULAR NAVY.

THE STATUS OF OUR PR IOR YEAR PROGRAMS IS EXCELLENT. ALL OF 

THE FY 1 977 AND 1978 PRO JEC TS HAVE BEEN AWARDED. ALL OF THE FY 

1 979 PROJECTS ARE SCHEDULED FOR AWARD DURING THE CURRENT FISC AL 

YEAR.

THE JU ST IF IC A TIO N DATA BOOKS WHICH HAVE BEEN FURNISHED CONTA IN DETAILED PRO JEC T DE SC RIPTIONS AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION. 

ALL PROPOSED PROJECTS WILL IMPROVE OPE RATIONAL, TR AINING , 

MAINTENANCE OR PERSONNEL SUPPORT F A C IL IT IE S ACTIVELY UT IL IZ ED 

BY THE NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS RESERV ES. THESE PRO JEC TS WILL 

CONTRIBUTE SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE IMPROVED READINESS AND RESPONSIVE NE SS OF THE NAVAL RESERVE AND MARINE CORPS RES ERV E. WE 

APPRE CIA TE THE PAST SUPPORT OF TH IS COMMITTEE AND EARNESTLY 

SEEK YOUR APPROVAL OF THE REQUIRED PROJECTS THAT COMPRISE TH IS 

PROGRAM.

THIS CONCLUDES MY STATEMENT, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WILL BE HAPPY 

TO ANSWER ANY QUE STIO NS AND TO PROV IDE ANY ADDITION AL INFORMATIO N THAT MAY BE DE SIRE D.
220

Admiral K amm. I would like to summarize briefly for the committee tha t statement on the 1980 military construction requirements for both the Naval and the Marine Corps Reserves.

In fiscal year 1980, we are requesting $15 million, of which $12.3 

million is earmarked for specific projects. We have a half a million 

for energy conservation projects, and $2.2 million is for minor 

construction and planning and design.

This request of $15 million is $6.9 million less th an was approved 

by the Congress in 1979.

The fiscal year 1980 military construction Naval Reserve program includes five projects which total $7 million in support of the 

Naval and Marine Corps Air Reserve, and three projects totalling 

$5.3 million in support of the Naval surface and Marine Corps 

ground Reserve. The requirements for these projects will remain 

firm.

The backlog of Naval and Marine Corps Reserve construction 

deficiencies now totals $199 million. The fiscal year 1980 program 

is formulated to provide an upgrading of inadequate Reserve facilities and to improve the mobilization readiness of the Naval and 

Marine Corps Reserve.

We, in the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve, are continuing to 

support a policy of joint utilization. The support facilities proposed 

in this request are for sites to be utilized eith er by the Navy or the 

Marine Corps Reserve with elements of Reserve components of 

other services or with the Regular Navy.

The status of our prior year programs is quite satisfactory. The 

funded 1977 and 1978 projects have been awarded, and by the end 

of this year we are scheduled to have awarded all of the fiscal year 

1979 projects. We expect to do well again in the 1980 program, if 

authorized.

The detailed justification books which have been provided contain project descriptions in support of this request. All projects 

requested will contribu te substantially to the readiness and responsiveness of both the Naval and the Marine Corps Reserve.

We most certainly appreciate your past support and earnestly 

seek your approval of the projects included in this yea r’s program, 

Mr. Chairman.

This concludes my summary statement, and I am available for 

any questions t ha t the committee may have.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you very much, Admiral.

We will now h ear from General McAdoo.
ir Force Reserve

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. JAMES E. McADOO. AIR FORCE RESERVE

PREPARED STATEMENT

General Mc doo. Sir, I am representing the Chief of Air Force 

Reserve this morning, Maj. Gen. William Lyon, who was called 

away for a family emergency this week.

I do have a formal statement, which I would like to submit, for 

the record.

Senator H uddleston. Without objection, it will be included in 

the record.

[The statement follows.]

(221)

41 -6 38 0 - 7 9 - 1 5
222

tatement of Ma j , Ge n. William Lyon

MR. CHAIRMA N AND MEMBERS OF T il l' CO MMI TT EE :

A g a in , an d 1 m ig h t . i n t e r j e c t a s o n e o f my l a s t o f f i ­

c i a l d u t i e s a s C h ie f o f A ir F o rc e R e s e r v e , I am p le a s e d 

t o m e et w ith you t o s e e k y o u r c o n tin u e d s u p p o r t an d 

c o u n te n a n c e o f th e A ir F o rc e R e s e rv e M i l i t a r y C o n s tr u c ­

t i o n P ro g ra m .

O ver t h e p a s t f o u r y e a r s , I h a v e ta k e n s p e c i a l i n t e r ­

e s t in s t a b i l i z i n g an d e n h a n c in g th e R e s e r v e 's F a c i l i t y 

C o n s t r u c t i o n P ro g ra m t o i n s u r e t h a t t h e r e q u ir e m e n ts p r e ­

s e n t e d t o t h i s an d th e o t h e r c o n g r e s s i o n a l c o m m it te e s 

r e p r e s e n t mi nimu m d o l l a r e x p e n d i t u r e t o a c c o m p lis h and 

s u p p o r t o u r m is s io n . O ver th e y e a r s we h a v e m ad e max imum 

u s e o f e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s , o f t e n by e x t e n s i v e m a in te ­

n a n c e , r e p a i r an il a l t e r a t i o n s t o acco m m o d ate o u r e v e r - 

e x p a n d in g r o l e in th e T o ta l F o r c e . B u t, a s o u r a i r c r a f t 

h a v e be co m e m or e s o p h i s t i c a t e d an d a s o u r m is s io n s h a v e 

e x p a n d e d an d g ro w n , so me o f t h e s e e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s 

h a v e now r e a c h e d t h e i r u s e f u l l i m i t s o t h a t R e s e rv e 

r e q u ir e m e n ts c a n o n ly bo e c o n o m ic a lly m et by c o n s t r u c t i o n 

o f new f a c i l i t i e s , t a i l o r e d to o u r n e e d s . In an e f f o r t 

t o f u l l y me et, t h e s e n e e d s , th e A ir F o i. ce R e s e r v e h a s 

e s t a b l i s h e d a f a c i l i t y r e q u ir e m e n ts p ro g ra m b a s e d on a 

t h r e e - p a r t fr am ew o rk o f r e p a i r , a l t e r a t i o n o r new c o n -

f

s t r u c t i o n , w h o re e a c h co m p o n en t i n t e r a c t s t o i n s u r e a 

w e ll b a l a n c e d , e c o n o m ic a l an d b e t t e r m anag ed p ro g ra m .
223

The first component--Repair--Is a major ongoing 

activity at ail Reserve installations. Based on a backlog of. facilities maintenance and repair (or BMAR) of 

$1.6 million for FY 79, our maintenance floor has been

established at $12.0 million. Given the Reserve's 

emphasis on upgrading existing facilities, we have projected a steady increase in this maintenance floor to 

obtain a reduction in the backlog.

Alteration of facilities, the second component of 

the requirements program framework, can be funded based 

on project scope, from either the maintenance/repair 

program or from the Military Construction Program. The 

Reserve maintenance/repair program is used to accomplish 

a large share of the alteration projects in lieu of new 

construction. In FY 78, $1.04 million was expended for 

52 projects for alteration of Reserve facilities with 

estimates for FY 79 of $305,100 for 40 projects and in 

FY 80 $1.05 million for 57 projects. As part of the 

Military Construction Program, alterations can be accomplished with both minor and major construction funding. 

In the FY 80 program, 100 percent of the minor construction projects and approximately 11 percent of the major 

construction projects will be devoted to altering existing facilities.

New construction, the third component of the facility requirements program, constitutes the largest dollar

share of the framework. This component includes facility
224

replacement and facility modernization which embodies the 

entire scope of the new facility construction request.

All in all the program framework of repair, alteration, or new construction provides a well balanced, 

better managed concept that achieves a maximum programming capability with the limited funds available. Each 

framework component is considered, weighed and compared 

with the others and every facility need is considered to 

assure adequate, economical and timely solutions in 

support of the combat readiness of the Reserve force.

With this quick look at the overall Air Force 

Reserve facility requirements program as a foundation,

I would now like to focus on the FY 80 Military Construction Program being presented for your support today.

The major construction part o f the program totals 

$7.5 million in authorization which is $3.9 million less 

than approved in the FY 79 program. The FY 80 program 

consists of 12 projects at 8 installations in 7 states. 

Projects emphasize maintenance facilities, about 

51 percent of the program, with training, support and 

operational projects, in that: order, making up the 

remaining 49 percent.

In support. o ' new aircraft and missions we are 

requesting two projects at Homestead Air Force Base, 

Florida, as follow-on construction to a conversion beddown. This conversion replaces the EC-121T airborne 

early warning and control mission, with fighter aircraft,
225

the F-4C, and a new tactical mission. At Eglin AFB, a 

new mission for existing AC-130 gunships necessitates 

construction of electronic countermeasures POD Shop and 

storage facility. This project, along with the installation of a solid st.itc instrument field landing system 

also being requested, should enable the gunship unit to 

achieve more realistic night-time training.

Other projects in this program support establishedmissions which were forced to utilize temporary or 

crowded shared lacilities t.o assure timely aircraft beddown. At Greater Pittsburgh International Airport, for 

example, two projects are being requested that will allow 

for demolition of an outmoded facility beyond economical 

repair. One of these projects will be a completely new 

facility while the other project, by taking advantage of 

a similar operation, will be accomplished by an addition 

to an existing facility. By using an addition in lieu 

of a new facility, common use areas, utilities and site 

work can be minimized for a considerable overall savings

in construction cost.

As 1 have mentioned before, the Air Force Reserve is 

striving to get the maximum for the defense dollar, and 

so far we have managed to stretch that dollar about as 

far as possible. Now, however, more new construction 

is needed. The program presented today represents only 

a very small part c»I the overall long-term cost, if 

replacement of antiquated facilities are to be realized. 

New missions, often assigned at short notice, and soar-
226

ncj construction costs have depleted any uncommitted 

funds we may have been able to fall back upon in past 

years. We foresee and welcome new mission assignments 

but we can also foresee rising new construction costs in 

the future. Thus, t o meet this future growth and yet 

retain the same high combat readiness we have worked so 

hard to accomplish, the Air Force Reserve must expand 

its new construction commitment if present and future

needs are to be fulfilled.

The Air Force Reserve continues to explore all possible means of satisfying facility needs. Repair, 

alterations and new construction programs have been 

viewed as a whole to insure that every means of providing 

facility support is investigated. The bottom line, 

however, is clear. We can only satisfy facility needs 

if there are enough dollars to fulfill those needs by 

continually strengthening and expanding the Air Force 

Reserve Military Construct ion Program in the future.

Gentlemen, the Air Force Reserve is fulfilling its 

peacetime mission and is ready to fulfill its wartime 

mission. We have the people and we are well on the way 

to obtaining the equipment. Now we need the facilities 

to house, train, maintain and operate these elements.

The Reserve FY 80 Military Construction Program provides 

some of our most essential facility needs. Your continued 

support in meeting these needs is solicited.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement.
223

General M cAdoo. I have a summary statement, which I would 

like to read, and also at the conclusion of my summary statement, 

I have a request that I would like to submit to the committee for 

consideration, sir.

Senator Huddleston . Y ou may proceed.

General M cAdoo. I am pleased to meet with you to seek your 

continued support of the Air Force Reserve military construction 

program.

We have taken special interest in stabilizing and enhancing the 

Reserve’s facility construction program to ensure that the requirements presented to this and other congressional committees represent minimum dollar expenditures to accomplish and support our 

mission.

Over th e years we have made maximum use of existing facilities, 

often by extensive maintenance, repair, and alterations to accommodate our ever-expanding role in the total force. But as our 

aircraft have become more sophisticated and our missions have 

expanded and grown, some of these existing facilities have now 

reached the ir useful limit so that Reserve requirements can only be 

economically met by construction of new facilities, tailored to our 

needs.

Our program of providing for Reserve facility needs by repair, 

alteration , or new construction insures a well balanced, better 

managed concept that achieves a maximum programing capability 

with the limited funds available.

As a component of meeting facilities requirements, the military 

construction program plays a major role. The fiscal year 1980 Air 

Force Reserve military construction program totals $10 million in 

appropriation and $7.5 million in authorization.

The program consists of 12 projects at 8 installation s in 7 States. 

Projects emphasize maintenance facilities, about 51 percent of the 

program, with training, support and operational projects, in tha t 

order, making up th e remaining 49 percent.

In support of new aircraft missions, we are requesting two projects a t Homestead Air Force Base, Fla., as follow-on construction to 

a conversion beddown.

At Eglin Air Force Base, a new mission for existing AC-130 

gunships necessitates construction of a new facility along with the 

installation of an updated solid state instrum ent landing system.

Our new facility and alteration projects in this program support 

established missions which were forced to utilize temporary or 

crowded facilities to assure timely airc raft beddown.

Through the use of maximum shared common-use areas, and 

rehab ilitation of structurally adequate facilities, the overall construction costs has been reduced while mission needs are still provided.

As I have mentioned before, the Air Force Reserve is s triving to 

get the maximum for the defense dollar, and with innovative plan ­

ning and use of advanced design techniques we have managed to 

stretch tha t dollar about as far as possible. But new missions, often 

assigned on short notice, and soaring construction costs have depleted any uncommitted funds we may have been able to fall back 

on for unforeseen construction contihgencies in the past years.
228

We foresee and welcome these new mission assignments. However, we can also foresee rising costs not only in construction but in 

all areas of providing for defense in the future. The bottom line is 

clear.

We can only satisfy our needs if there are enough dollars to 

fulfill those needs. By continually strengthening and expanding the 

Air Force Reserve military construction program in the future, 

these basic facility needs can be met.

Gentlemen, the Air Force Reserve is fulfilling its peacetime mission, and is ready to fulfill its wartime mission. We have th e people 

and we are well on the way to obtaining modernized aircraft. Now 

we need your continued support of the military construction program to obtain some of th e most essential facilities to house, train, 

maintain, and operate these elements.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. At this 

time I do have a request that I would like to submit to the committee for consideration.

Senator Huddleston . We would like to h ear it.

General Mc Adoo. In the fiscal year 1980 military construction 

program books, the Air Force Reserve proposed construction of a 

rocket checkdown and assemble building at New Orleans Naval 

Air Station in Louisiana in the amount of $1 million.

This project is a requirement for follow-on of th e beddown of A37 aircraft which seemed at the time to be the highest in priority 

of the three projects for this location. However, now we have 

adjusted tha t priority. I, therefore, request consideration of a substitution of the two other projects for the same dollar amount 

which would replace the rocket checkdown and assemble building. 

PROGRAMING DOCUMENTS

The projects to be substituted are a fuel cell maintenance shop at 

$320,000, and an electronic parts shop and storage at $680,000. 

Programing documents are available on both projects, and are 

submitted at this time.

Thank you.

[The information follows:]
USWR

229

FY ITAItY CONSTHUCTION I’ HOJLCI DAT A

3. I l l . i l / - I I / I K IN AM D IJ l l A I II i

NEW okl la iis naval a ir st ation 

NEW ORLEANS. LO UIS 1ANA

S I H O C .ilA M I I l Ml |b CAT I C.DUV CODE 7 p n o jc c i NU MD LK

217-713

9 COST IS IIM A IE S

? i A .'

IT. MAR 7 9

4 I'hoii c i m i i

ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES 

POD SHOP AND STORAGE

8 riiojLCi cur t liaio59396F 6 8 0

H IM U-M O U A N II l V U N I 1 COS •

•S o "

ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES POD SHOP AND

STORAGE SF 6 ,7 0 0 7 4.3 0 548

SUPPORTING F A C IL IT IE S 66

ELECTRIC LS ( 5)

WATER, SANITARY SEWER LS ( 4)

SIT E IMPROVEMENT LS ( 2)

SPECIAL FOUNDATION (P IL ES) LS ( 52)

ROADS, PARKING AND WALKS SY 232 1 1.5 0 ( 3)

TOTAL COST 6 14

CONTINGENCY (5% ) 31

ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST 6 45 T

SUPERVISION, INSPECTION AND OVERHEAD (5 .5 X ) 35

TOTAL REQUEST 6 8 0

io de sc ri pt io n of PROPOSED coNSTnucnoN C o n c re te m asonry w a lls w it h 

r e in fo r c e d c o n c re te s la b on p il e s u p p o rts , m e ta l r o o f fr a m in g , b u ilt - u p 

r o o f , m eta l d o o rs , su sp ended c e ilin g and v in y l f l c o r t i l e . F a c i li t y i n ­

c lu d e s pod m a in te n a n ce s t a t io n s , be nc h s to c k , pod lo a d in g , u n lo a d in g and 

s to ra g e a re a s , ra d a r w a rn in g r e c e iv e r a re a and o f f i c e sp ace ; s u p p o rt sp ac e 

and u t i l i t i e s .

A ir C o n d it io n in g - 20 Tons.

11 . REQUIREMENT: 6 ,7 0 0 SF ADEQUATE: 0 SUBSTANDARD: 0

PROJECT: C o n s tru c t a new e le c tr o n ic s c o u n te rm e a su re s pod sh op an d s to ra g e

f a c i l i t y .

REQUIREMENT: An a d e q u a te , p r o p e r ly c o n fig u re d f a c i l i t y is re q u ir e d to p e r 

fo rm m a in te n a nce and p ro v id e s e cure s to ra g e o f e le c t r o n ic co un te rm e a sure s 

pods and a s s o c ia te d e q u ip m e n t. The m a in te n a nce sh op m ust p ro v id e a co n ­

t r o lle d e n v ir o n m e n t to in s p e c t, m a in ta in an d r e p a ir p od s, ra d a r r e c e iv e r s 

and o th e r e q u ip m e n t. Th e s to ra g e are a m ust c o n ta in a b rid g e c ra n e , lo a d in g 

and u n lo a d in g sp ace f o r l i f t i n g an d tr a n s p o r t in g e qu ip m en t and p ro v id e 

sp ac e f o r pod s to ra g e ra c k s .

CURRENT S ITUA TIO N: No adequate sp ac e is a v a ila b le to lo c a te th e re q u ir e d 

equip m ent and po ds f o r m a in te n a nce an d s to ra g e in a se cu re c o n t r o lle d env ir o n m e n t.

IMPACT IT NOT PROVIDED: M is s io n c a p a b ilit y w i l l be s e v e re ly hampe red 

w it h o u t an ade q u ate t a c i T i t y .
FY 19210 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

 OATl

15 MAP 79

J IN STALL ATIO N ANU LOCA1 ION

New Orleans Naval Air Station, New Orleans, Louisiana •

4 PROJECT TITLE 5. PROJECT NUMBER

Electronic Countermeasures Pod Shop and Storage

SUPPLEMEN TAL DATA

A. ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST TO OP ERATE THE PROPOSED FACILITY.

— ft oo orB. HUMBER OF ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT 

THE FUNCTION OF THE PROPOSED FAC ILI TY.................

“ [ people

C. ESTIMATED LIFE-CYCLE COST TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE 

PROPOSED F ACILITY ..................................... 717

“ W o T

D. ESTIMATED LIFE-CYCLE COST TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE 

EXISTING FACILITY IF NEW FACILITY IS A REPLACEMENT....

E. DESIGN STATUS (ESTIMATED):

1. Design Started _ 31 Jan 1979

(date]

2. As of J anuary 1 , 1979 (X comp let e)......................

3. As of October 1 , 1979 (X co mpl ete )................ .....

4. Design Completed 30 Sep 1979 .

Tdate)

F. EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT WHICH WILL BE PROVIDED 

FROM OTHER APPROPRIATIONS:

W o T

X

50

100

EQUIPMENT

NOMENCLATURE

PROCURING

APPROPRIATION

FISCAL YEAR 

APPROPRIATED 

OR REQUESTED

COST

($000)

NONE
2 3 1

' .- . M t j — 2 D A 11 I

T V 1 9 MI LI T A R Y C O N S T R U C TI O N P R O J E C T D A T A 

_ 2 4. - 2?_ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 5 M A R 7 9

3 I N S’ l A I I O N A N O I O C A TI O N 

I.Lli O R L E A N S ii/. V A L AI R S T A TI O N, L O UI SI A N A

« I II O Jt C T TI T L E

r u C L S Y S T E M M A I N T E N A N C E D O C K

5 P R O G’’/ M E lt M E N l 0 C A’ I t , o n v C O O L J P K O J E C T N U M B E R 0 P R O J E C T C O S T li O O Ol

5 9 3 9 G F 2 1 1 - 1 7 9 3 2 0

9 c o m e s ti m a t e s

Ul M Q U A N TI T Y U N I’ C O S’

F U E L S Y S T E M M AI N T E N A N C E D O C K 

S U P P O R T F A CI LI TI E S 

E L E C T RI C

W A T E R, S A NI T A R Y S E D E R, G A S 

S T O R M D R AI N A G E 

SI T E I M P R O V E M E NT 

S P E CI A L F O U N D A TI O N S 

T O T AL C O S T 

C O N TI N G E N C Y ( 5 %)

E S TI M A T E D C O N T R A CT C O S T

S U P E R VI SI O N, I N S P E C TI O N A N D O V E R H E A D ( 5. 5 % )

T O T AL R E Q U E ST

S F 1 1, 0 0 0 2 2. 8 0

3 0 3

1 7

3 2 0

i o d e s c ri p ti o n o f p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c ti o n A f u el s y st e m m ai nt e n a n c e d o c k a n d c o r - 

r o si o n c o n tr ol f a c ilit y . M et al w a ll s , p ili n g s , c o n c r e t e f o u n d ati o n a n d 

fl o o r sl a b , m et al r o o f. F a c ilit y i n cl u d e s w a s h r a c k - d o c k, bl a d d e r m ai n t e ­

n a n c e, m e c h a ni c al e q ui p m e n t a n d u tiliti e s c o n tr ol a r e a s, t o ol st o r a g e a n d 

a d m i n i s tr a ti v e a r e a, a n d l a t ri n e s ; i n cl u d e s n e c e s s ar y v e n til a ti o n a n d fi r e 

p r o t e c ti o n , a p r o n a c c e s s, a ll u tiliti e s a n d n e c e s s ar y s u p p o rt .

A ir C o n diti o ni n g - 1 3 t o n s

1 1. R E Q UI R E M E N T: 1 1, 0 0 0 S F A D E Q U A 1 E : 0 S U B S T A N D A R D : 0

P R OJ E C T: A f u el s y st e m m ai nt e n a n c e a n d c o rr o si o n c o n tr ol f a c ilit y f o r 

fi g h t e r a i r c r a ft.

R E Q UI R E M E N T: T hi s i s a j o i n t A ir N ati o n al G u a r d - A ir F o r c e R e s e r v e r e q uir e ­

m e nt. T hi s f a c ilit y i s r e q uir e d t o p r o vi d e m ai nt e n a n c e ar e a s n e c e s s a r y t o 

i n s p e ct, m ai n t ai n a n d r e p air a i r c r a ft f u el s y st e m s a n d t o p e rf o r m c o rr o si o n 

c o n t r o l.

C U R R E N T SI T U A TI O N: R e q ui r e d f u el s y st e m m ai nt e n a n c e i s p e rf or m e d o n a n o p ei 

a i r c r a ft w a s h r a c k s u bj e ct t o a d v er s e w e at h er c o n diti o n s .

I M P A C T I F N O E P R O VI D E D: F ail u r e t o p r o vi d e t h i s f a c ilit y w ill d e gr a d e a i r ­

c r a ft m ai nt e n a n c e a n d m ai nt e n a n c e t r a i n i n g f o r b ot h t h e G u a r d a n d R e s e r v e 

u n it s , r e s u lti n g i n a n a d v e r s e i m p a ct o n mi s si o n r e a di n e s s. T hi s r e pr e s e nt s 

A ir F o r c e R e s e r v e p a rti ci p a ti o n i n a n A ir N ati o n al G u a r d p r o j e c t, l o t a l 

c o st i s $ 9 1 5, 0 0 0.
232

£ C O'.ii'G '.l N T 

y USAFK FY ink O M ll lf A R Y CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DA TA 2 UA' fc

15 MAR 79

3 IN STA LL AT IO N AN O LOC A1 ION

New Orleans' Naval A ir S ta ti o n , New Orle an s, Louisian a

4 PROJECT TIT LE

Fuel System Mainte nance Dock

5. PROJECT NU MBE R

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA

A. ESTUIATED ANNUAL COST TO OPERATE THE PROPOSE D FACILITY.

“ K o o o T -

B. NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT 

THE FUNCTION OF THE PROPOSED FAC ILIT Y... .............. 0

"(PEOPLE)

C. ESTIMATED LIFE-CYCLE COST TO OPERATE AND M AINT AIN THE 

PROPOSED FAC ILIT Y...................................... 373

T W o T

D. ESTIMATED LIFE-CYCLE COST TO OPERATE AND MA INTAIN THE 

EXISTING FACILITY IF NEW FACILITY IS A REPLACEMENT....

E. DESIGN STATUS (ESTIMATED):

1. Design Started 31 Jan 1979___

(date)

2. As of Januar y 1 , 1979 (X co mpl ete )......................

3. As of October 1 , 1979 (X compl ete )......................

4. Design Completed 30 Sep 1979

(date)

F. EQUIPMENT ASSOCIA TED WITH THIS PROJECT WHICH WILL BE PROV IDED 

FROM OTHER APPROPRIATIONS:

($000)

X

5

100.

EQUIPMENT

NOMENCLATURE

PROCURING

APPROPRIATION

FISCAL YEAR 

APPRO PRIAT ED 

OR REQUESTED

COST

($000)

- NONE
233

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Senator Huddleston. We will receive tha t request, and give it, of 

course, full consideration.

General McAdoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Huddleston. I want to commend you, gentlemen, as I 

have others of th e Defense Department who have appeared before 

this subcommittee, and other subcommittees I serve on, for the 

thoroughness of your presentation.

We hear a lot about austerity in our budget this year. The 

reductions that you are presenting to us this year go somewhat 

beyond austerity, if I might say so.

We now have the public witnesses that we want to hear. I think 

that perhaps we would be bette r able to pose our questions—and 

you to answer them —after we hear the ir comments, if that is 

agreeable to the panel.

Senator Laxalt, would you agree with that?

Senator Laxalt. Yes.

Senator Huddleston. Good. Let us then hear from Maj. Gen. 

Francis B. Greenlief, executive vice president of the National 

Guard Association of the United States.

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

National Guard Association of the United States

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. FRANCIS S. GREENLIEF, EXECUTIVE VICE

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED

STATES

PREPARED STATEMEN T

General Greenlief. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members.

I am Maj. Gen. Francis Greenlief, executive vice president of the 

National Guard Association of the United States. I appreciate very 

much the privilege of appearing before your subcommittee in support of the military construction programs of the Army and Air 

National Guard.

With your permission, I would like to summarize my stateme nt 

by presenting only the underlined sentences that are shown in 

your copy.

Senator Huddleston. The complete stateme nt will be made part 

of the record, without objection.

[The stateme nt follows:]

(235)
236

Statement of Ma j . Gen . Francis S. Green lief (Ret .)

Mr. Chairman, and members. I am Major General Fr an cis G re en lief , Executive Vice

Pre si de nt of the Na tio na l Guard As sociation of the Uni ted S ta te s. I ap pr ec ia te 

th e pri vil ege of appeari ng be fo re your subcommittee in supp ort of the M ilitar y

Con struction Programs of the Anny and Air Na tio na l Guard.

GENERAL

You have heard ou tstand in g testim ony in supp ort of th e M il itary Constr u cti o n Program (MCP)/Army Nationa l Guard (ARNG) and Ai r Nationa l Guard (ANG). 

However, th a t testim ony has been co ns traine d by DoD/CMB budget re str ic ti o n s.

The views which I pre se nt ar e th e views of the 48,000 members of our Assoc iatio n — 

th e o ff ic e rs of the Army and Air Na tio na l Guard.

The bu sine ss of the Na tio na l Guard is to prod uce re ad in es s — re ad in es s to 

se rv e e it h e r Sta te or nat io n on c a ll. F a c il it ie s ar e an im po rta nt in gre die nt 

in th e prod uc tio n of re ad in es s. Without ade quate f a c ilitie s , i t is d if f ic u lt 

to oonvinoe pr os pe ctiv e re c ru it s to jo in , or cu rr ent members to st ay. Without 

ade qua te f a c ilitie s , we can not st ore and ma intain equipment, and we can not 

tr a in eff ecti v ely .

Th is oa nn itte e has understood our problem and has been generous in supp ort

p f our program. We ar e p a rt ic u la rl y g ra te fu l fo r the FY '79 add-on of $2.5 

m il li on to th e MCARNG program and $3.25 m illion to th e MCANG program.

CO NS TRUC TIO N MANAGEMENT

Management of Nationa l Guard M ilitar y Con struction Programs by th e Na tio na l 

Guard Bureau (NGB) and the Sta te s co nti nu es to be ou ts ta nd in g. The NGB had 

$56.2 m illion avai la ble fo r MCARNG in FY '78, and obligat ed $52 m illion, lea ving 

a carry ov er of only $4.2 m illion fo r FY '79.

Funds av ai la bl e fo r the FY '78 MCANG program to ta ll ed $38.5 m illion. Of 

th at amount, $24.8 m illion had been ob lig at ed by 30 September 1978, and 

$31.9 m ill io n had been ob lig at ed by 31 Deoenber 1978. Carrie d ove r from 

FY '78 to FY '79 was $13.7 m illion.

STA TE PA RT IC IPAT IO N

HE Nfltiflnal Guard M ilitar y Const ruction Program produces more brick , 

BBrtar and St ee l fo r the fe de ra l dollar than any ot he r M ilitar y Co nstru ction
231

Program. In the armory co ns truc tio n program, the St at es pro vid e the re a l 

e sta te , equ ip the arm ories, and pay fo r the op eration and maintenance

arm ories in ad di tio n to pro vid ing 25 pe rcen t of the co st of co ns truc tio n

au thorize d by the fe de ra l government, Additional SAYings Pf fed eral do lla rs

ar e achieve d because the St at es do the pla nning , designin g and su pe rv ision

pf ARNG co ns truc tio n and part of ANG co ns truc tio n.

FACTORS IMPEDING PROGRAM EXECUTION

pn fo rtun at el v, a number of fa ct ors , beyond the co nt ro l of the Sta te s,

ar e ser iou sly impeding execution of the National Guard Mi lita ry Construction

P ro g ra m .

I n fla t^ n

The MCARNG Program experie nce d an in fl ati o n ra te of 8>s pe rcen t in FY ' 76.

Even though the NGB ob lig ated $52 m illion fo r MCARNC- in FY '78 , the co ns truc tio n

backlog sto od a t $657 m ill io n a t end FY '7? — gn increa se of $71 m illion during 

the yea r.

Jhe MCANG program exper ien ced an avera ge ra te of in fl ati o n durin g FY *78 of

12 per ce nt. During the ye ar the es tim ated po st of the MCANG backl og in cr ea se d 

from $296 m illion to $330 m illion, wh ile $25 m illion was being plac ed under

co n tr act. Any ac ti on which sl cv s prog ramed co ns truc tion in cr ea se s the 

ultim at e cost .

Reprograming

FY '79 Ap prop ria tio ns Act lang uage re qu ired th at oert ain p ro je cts no t 

Included on_the l i s t of pro je cts sub mi tted with the FY '79 Budget Reque st,

and pro je cts fo r which the cu rr en t work ing es tim at e exoeeds 125 pe rc en t

of th e pr ev ious ly repo rte d co st s, be sub mi tted to the Ap prop ria tio ns Comm itte es fo r reprogranming ap pr ov al. He un derstand the oo rm itte es ' need fo r 

this information. and we agree th at the inform ation should be pr ov ided .

Pcwever, th e time de lay u-hich th is pr oc ess has produced is a se rious

impediment to program ex ec ut io n.

Hie NGB subm itted a l i s t of 12 naPKG p rojects to ta llin g S14 million for

reprogranming ac tion on 16 November 1978. Acoroval was no t re ce iv ed u n ti l 

1 March 1979. Although your su bcc nrittee ac ted w ith in two weeks tim e, the

41 -6 38 0 - 7 9 - 1 6
238

total time delay was three and one-half months. Recognizing an annual 8k percent inflation rate, the delay can be expected to increase federal costs by 

S350.000. plus additional State costs. A similar delay in action on an MCANG 

reprogranming request also had the effect o f i n c r e a s i n g f e d e r a l c o s ts .-

In addition, these long delays retard program execution, and will lower 

obligation rates. We urge that reprogranming ac tion be completed within 

the same 30-day time period which is required for clearance with the Armed

Services Ccrrmittees.

Foroe_PacJ<^2in2_Me^bodolog^

All ARN3 units are included in the Army's Total Force — all are 

required by this nation's war plans. The States are required to house 

all ARNG units. They base their construction planning on the basis 

of unit needs and the availability of real estate and State funds. However, current DoD programming policy authorizes construction of MCARNG 

projects only if the projects relate directly to very earl y deploying units. 

Considering that changes do, and will, occur in deploy ment schedules and 

unit priorities, it makes no sense at all to program 25-year facilities 

on the basis of the current deployment schedule. Deployment schedules may 

have changed by the time a given construction project has been completed. 

Facilities should continue to be programmed on the basis of un it need, available

real estate and available State funds.

If DoD persists in ignoring State needs and concerns in pr og ra mi ng

the construction of ARN G armories, State legislatures will became understandably reluctant to continue to provide their 50 percent share of the 

cos ts. Unless DoD modifies its insistence on 100 percent control of armor/

programming, I can visualize the National Governors' Association informing

DoD of their intent to withdraw frcm the prog ram — giving DoD 100 percent

of the co st to go wi th 100 pe rcen t contr ol.

Authority for Construction of Facilities

Section 2233, title 10, U.S.C, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to 

contribute funds to States to:

(1) Expand, rehabilitate, or convert facilities owned by the State 

for use jointly by units of two or more Reserve Components.
239

(2) Expand, rehabilitate, or convert facilities owned by the State, 

or to acquire, construct, expand, rehabilitate or convert additional 

facilities made necessary by the conversion, redesignation, or reorganization

of units of the ARNG or ANS.

(3) Acquire, construct, expand, rehabilitate, or convert additional 

facilities which are required by any increase in strength of the ARNG or

ANG.

The rationale expressed by Congress in adopting 10 U.S.C. 2233 was that

.the federal government, by increasing the structure and strength of the National

Guard, had created a construction requirement beyond the capability of the States

to support. For 29 years the Congress and DoD have authorized construction of

National Guard armories where existing armories were inadequate. >ow 29 years 

later DoD has reinterpreted the criteria for authorization of construction of

facilities to make than much more restrictive. DoD deleted an armory project 

from the FY '80 program on the basis that: (a) the project was not a ioint 

th e u n i t h ad n e v e r b e e n c o n v e rte d , redesignated pr 

reorganized; (c) the unit had never been required to increase in authorized

strength.

In our view, the construction should have been authorized because 

criteria (3) above addresses strength increase of the ARNG or the AN G 

without relating the strength increase to any specific unit.

Hew many units might be denied construction because of the application 

of criteria (3) is not known, but to the extent that the^rule is appli ed.

QSgded unit .oonstructipn w j H fee denied ~ contrary v.e believe, to the 

intent of Congress.

FY 1980 MCARNG PROGRA*

The FY '79 Budget Request for MCARNG, submitted to the Congress bv DoD,

listed $58 million as the FY '80 MCARNG requirement. A November 1978 DoD 

decision on the FY '80 MCARNG Budget reduced the Program to £27.25 mill ion.

That DoD decision was followed by an CKB decision whic h further reduced the

FY '80 MCARNG Budget Request to $20 million.

If the end FY *79 MCARNG backlog is $672 million, and if inflation occurs 

in FY '79 at the rate of 8S percent, an FY '80 MCARNG progra m of $57 million 

would be required just bo acc om od at e inflation. I n o u r view, an annual ’■rAP?r; 

program of $60 million is recuired.
The NGB to ct-irmny supp orts a $20 m illion prog ram, and includ es a l i s t of 

26 pro je cts .

M-t-arted to mv statem en t is a l i s t of 64 ur gen tly nggded^'gARNQ pre le c ts ,

involvi ng 29 Sta te s with a to ta l cos t of $40 m il li on. Each nt these prnifiCts 

has alread y been de sig ned, or is being desig ned - Stafr? matching fupfe.apg 

r e a l esta te ar e now av ail ab le . Each of th es e p ro je cts could be pu t under 

co ntrac t in FY '80 .

FY 1980 MCANG PROGRAM

IjGB's ori g in al bud get submissio n, bas ed on the approved DoD Program

Ob jec tiv e Memorandum (PCM), was $61.68 m il li o n . Purin g the bud get re vie w 

Process, POP deferred two pro je cts to ta ll in g $3.4 m illion to la te r y ears ,

end de le ted an $8.98 m illion pro je ct, red ucing the FY '80 Budget Request to

m illion. The Office of Management and Budget fu rt her redu ced the FY '80 

Budget Request to $30 m il li o n . The Cf-IB re du ct io n fo rced the d efe rr al of 18 

pro je cts from the DoD-approved FY '80 MCANG program.

After ocxnpletion of th e planned FY '80 MCANG program, and i f in fl a ti o n 

co nti nu es a t 12 per ce nt, th e MCANG backlog a t end FY '80 w il l be $378 m illion, 

up $18 m illion fr an the cu rr en tly-e st im at ed end FY *79 backlog of $360 m illion.

Hie NGB tes tim ony supp orts a $30 m illion program and in clud es a l i s t of

4 9

Attached to my sta ta n a it is a l i s t o f ^ u r g e n tly needed MCANG pro je cts

ty 4 o-^- ^~7 Million. in 22 S ta te s. ^T hig lic t- inrli-rlog H o t c r r w i r r r m FY '78 and FY '79,

pl us pro je cts th at were de fe rred beca use of the DoD/OMB bud get re du ctio ns .

SUMAHY

Mr. Chairman, and members, we deeply ap pr ec ia te th e generou s supp ort your

ca nnit te e has always giv en our program. We ask th a t you reccrrmend an MCARNG 

Ap prop ria tio n of $60 m illion and an MCANG Ap prop ria tio n of $61 m illion fo r

EY 1980. Fu rthe r we ask vou r supp ort in el im in at in g fa cto rs which impede 

Na tio na l Guard M il itar y Con str uc tio n Program ex ec utio n.

1. w ill b e p le a se d to a tt e m p t to answ er your q u e s ti o n s
241

ATACHME.T #1 — MCARNG FY 1980 PROJECT LIST

STATE LOCATION PROJECT OOST(SOOO)

NC Morganton Armed Foroes Reserve Center 294

AL Ozark Operational Maintenance Shop 132

Arab Operational Maintenance Shop 188

Telledega Operational Maintenance Shop 211

LA Vidalia Armory 489

TN Milan Unit Training Equipment Site/ 

Weekend Training Site

1,078

SC West Columbia Armory 613

NC Raleigh- Division Logistics System 249

Raeford Armory 406

TX

Edenton Armory 347

San Antonio Army Aviation Support Facility 478

IA DeQuincy Armory 568

IA Dubuque Armory 647

RI North Kingston Army Aviation Support Facility 1,404

North Kingston Armory Addition 122

FL West Palm Beach Armed Forces Reserve Center 738

West Palm Beach Operational Maintenance Shop 159

MN Cwatonna Armory 528

ND

St. Peter Armory 475

Devils Lake Unit Training Equipment Site 1,392 Oil New Philadelphia Armory 555

OK Stillwater Armory 561

UT Canp Williams Operational Maintenance Shop 291

Mt Pleasant Armory 590

VT Ethan Allen Range Dispensary 146

WY Cheyenne Army Aviation Support 458

IA

Gillette Armory 518

Oakgrove Armory 547

AL Ft McClellan Training Facility 1,997

KY Williamsburg Armory 462 VT Canp Johnson United States Prop erty & Fiscal 

Officer Addition

107

TO Catoosa Range 400

Memphis Armory 1,048

MN

Memphis Operational Maintenanc e Shop 162

Canp Ripley Combined Support Maintenance Shop 

Addition

521

CA Canp Roberts Training Facilities 1,000 MI Big Rapid Armory 641

MO

Canp Grayling logistic Support Facility 1,551

Jefferson City Army Aviation Support Facility 1,500 VA Staunton Operational Maintenance Shop 184 TO Ripley Armory 599

NY

Rockwood Armory 232

Ronkonkcmo Armory Aviation Support Facility 710

Ronkonkcmo Armory 159

VI

Ronkonkcmo Operational Maintenance Shop 201

St. Thomas Armorv 468

NC .’J be-- r'. : Arrcrz
242

NV

Saginaw Armory 584

Long Beach Combined Support Maintenance Shop 234

Ft McClellan Unit Training Equipment Site 

Addition

166

Ft Indiantown Gap Aviation Comple x 1,235

St. Croix Armory 676

Monticello Division Logistics S ystem 132

Fort Drum Training Facilities 2,381

New Britain Armory 763

Ashland Armory 617

Huntsville Armory Addition 320

Camp Edwards Training Facilities 262

Camp Edwards Unit Training Equipm ent Site 182

Camp Grayling Ammunition Facility 1,501

Smyrna Armory 458

West Chester Armory 1,095

West Chester Operational Maintenance Shop 293

Carson City Operational Maintenance Shop 174

Total major construction 

‘Minor construction

37,528

2,472

40,000

*The minor construction funds are to support the Energy

Conservation Investment Program (ECIP). The $2.9 million in the program for minor construction is totally 

inadequate to support projects and ECIP. It is estimated the total ECIP requirement will be approximately 

$30 million.

ATTACHMENT #2 — MCANG FY 1980 PROJECT LIST

STATE LOCATION

PROJECTS DEFERRED FROM FY '78

PROJECT CQST($000)

HI

IN

MA

Hilo/Keaukaha 

Mil Reservation

Terre Haute/ 

Hulman Field

Worcester/ 

Worcester AGS

Reserve Forces Ccnm-Elec Training 

Facility

Auto Maint/Supt Equipment Shop 

Add/Alter Weapons Release Systems Shop 

Support Equipment Shop

1,375

1,030

890

570

3 3 S £ £ § 9 3 8 3 3 £ £ §

Subtotal - $3,865 M

PROJECTS DEFERRED FROM FY '79

STATE LOCATION PROJECT CO ST ($000)

A2 Phoenix/Sky

Harbor LAP

Conver t Dock to Fuel System Maint Dock 360

CA Mountain View/ 

Moffet t NAS

Add/Al ter Para Dinghy Shop 600

CT Windso r Locks/ 

Bradley AGB

Alte r Complex to Weapons Release and 

Storage

465

GA Marietta/Dobbins Rocket Stor/Checkout/Assembly 835

AFB AvionicsAteapons Release Shop 735

IL Springfield/' Add to Jet Fuel Storage 235

Capital MAP
243

STATE LOCATION PROJECT CO ST($000)

MD Baltimore/Glenn L. 

Martin State Apt

Composite Squadron Opns Facility 1,050

MA Wes tfield/Bames Fuel Sys tem Maintenance Dock 920

MAP Avionics/Weapons Release Shop 1,245

MI Mt. Clemens/ 

Selfridge AGB

Squadron Operations Facility 1,260

NM Albuquerque/ 

Kirtland AFB (ANG)

Composite Maintenance Facility 1,030

ND Fargo/Hector Field Fuel Sy stem Maintenance Dock 805

OH Springfield/ 

Springfield MAP

Fuel S ystem Maintenance Dock 960

TX Houston/Ellington AFB (ANG)

Alter Bldgs 1290 & 1287 for Auto Maint/ 

Refuel Veh icle Shop/POL Opns

515

OT Salt Lake City/ Reserve Foroes Ccnm-Elec Tng Facility 1,445

Salt Lake City LAP

MI Mt. Clemens/ 

Selfridge AGB

Avionics/Weapons Release Shop 825

M0 St. Joseph/Rosecrans Memorial 

Airport

Aerial Port Training Facility 770

TO Knoxville/MoGheeTyson Airport

Maintenance Control 515

MA Wes tfi eld/Bames Squadron Ooerations Facility 640

MAP

r „ . _ ^ i - $15.

FY ’80 PROJECTS DEFERRED FY ' 80 DOD/CMB BUDGET COTS

Classified

Location

8,985

RI Providence/Quonset St^te Apt

Jet Fuel Storage 900

MI Mt. Clemens/ 

Selfridge AGB

Base Supply a nd Equipment Warehouse 2,500

AZ Tucson/Tucson LAP Compos ite Sqd Opns/Academic Tng Fac 1,375

CA Fresno/ Fresno LAP Support Equipm ent Shop/Storage 550

CT Windsor Loc ks/ 

Bradley AGB

Composite Squadron Operations 1,100

DC Andrews AFB ANG Support Center 3,000

IN Ft Wayne/Ft

Wayne MAP

Squadron Operations/Teleocnm Center 1,300

MD Baltimore/Glenn L. 

Martin State Apt

Auto Maintenanoe/Refuel Vehicle Shop 850

MA Welles ley AGS Support E quipment Shop 450

MS Meridan/Key Field Base Supply and Equipment Warehouse 1,145

MO St. Louis/LambertSt. Louis Apt

Reserve Forces Opns & Tng Facility 2,500

NY Roslyn AGS Add/Alter Vehic le Maintenance Shop 475

Westche ster

County Apt

Add/Alter Maintenance Hangar 600

OH Springfield/ 

Springfield MAP

Base Engineer Maintenance Facility 450

OT Salt Lake City/

Salt Lake City LAP

Add to Base Supply 680

WA Everett/Paine

Field

Reserve Foroes Cor m-Elec Tng Facility 990

Subtotal - $27,850 M

TOTAL $ 47.0 M
244

General Greenlief. This subcommittee has understood our problem and has been generous in support of our program. We are 

particularly grateful for the fiscal year 1979 add-on of $2.5 million 

to the Army Guard construction program, and $3.25 million for the 

Air Guard construction program.

The National Guard military construction program produces 

more brick, mortar and steel for the Federal dollar than any other 

military construction program. In the armory construction program, the States provide the real estate, equip the armories, and 

pay for the operation and maintenance of the armories in addition 

to providing 25 percent of the cost of construction authorized by 

the Federal Government.

Additional savings of Federal dollars are achieved because the 

States do the planning, designing and supervision of Army Guard 

construction and part of the Air Guard construction.

Unfortunately, gentlemen, a number of factors, beyond the control of the States, are seriously impeding execution of the National 

Guard military construction program.

First, inflation—The MCARNG program experienced an inflation 

rate of 8.5 percent in fiscal year 1978. Even though the NGB 

obligated $52 million for MCARNG in fiscal year 1978, the construction backlog stood at $657 million at end of fiscal year 1978— 

an increase of $71 million during the year.

The Air Guard program experienced an average rate of inflation 

during fiscal year 1978 of 12 percent. During the year the estim ated cost of the MCANG backlog increased $296 to $330 million, 

while $25 million was being placed under contract. Any action 

which slows programed construction increases the ultim ate cost.

Reprograming: Fiscal Year 1979 Appropriations Act language 

required tha t certain projects not included on the list of projects 

submitted with the fiscal year 1979 budget request, and projects for 

which the current working estimates exceed 125 percent of the 

previously reported costs, be submitted to the Appropriations Committees for reprograming approval.

We understand the committees’ need for this information, and 

we agree tha t the information should be provided. However, the 

time delay which this process has produced is a serious impediment 

to program execution.

The NGB submitted a list of 12 MCARNG projects totaling $14 

million for reprograming action on November 16, 1978. Approval 

was not received until March 1, 1979. Although your subcommittee 

acted within 2 weeks time, the total time delay was 31/2 months.

Recognizing an annu al 8.5-percent inflation rate, the delay can 

be expected to increase Federal costs by $350,000, plus additional 

state costs. A similar delay in action on an MCANG reprogramming request also had the effect of increasing Federal costs.

If DOD persists in ignoring State needs and concerns in programming the construction of ARNG armories, State legislatures will 

become understandably reluctant to continue to provide their 50 

percent share of the costs. Unless DOD modifies its insistence on 

100 percent control of armory programing, I can visualize the 

National Governors’ Association informing DOD of th eir inte nt to 

withdraw from th e program giving DOD 100 percent of the cost to 

go with 100-percent control.
245

The rationale expressed by Congress in adopting 10 U.S.C. 2233 

was tha t the Federal Government, by increasing the stru cture and 

strength of the National Guard, had created a construction requirement beyond the capability of the States to support.

For 29 years the Congress and DOD have authorized construction 

of National Guard armories where existing armories were inadequate. Now, 29 years later, DOD has reinterpreted the c riteria for 

authorization of construction of facilities to make them more restrictive.

DOD deleted an armory project for the fiscal year 1980 program 

on the basis that: (a) The project was not a joint utilization project; 

(b) the unit had never been converted, redesignated or reorganized; 

and (c) th e unit had never been required to increase in authorized 

strength.

To the extent tha t tha t new rule is applied, needed u nit construction will be denied, contrary, we believe, to the inte nt of Congress.

Fiscal year 1980 MCARNG program—The fiscal y ear 1979 budget 

request for MCARNG, submitted to the Congress by DOD, listed 

$58 million as the fiscal year 1980 MCARNG requirement. A November 1978 DOD decision on the fiscal year 1980 MCARNG 

budget reduced the program to $37.25 million. That DOD decision 

was followed by an OMB decision which further reduced the fiscal 

year 1980 MCARNG budget request to $20 million, notwithstanding 

tha t DOD had recognized the requirement for $58 million. In our 

view, an annual MCARNG program of $60 million is required.

Attached to my state ment is a list of 64 urgently needed additional MCARNG projects, involving 29 States with a total cost of 

$40 million. Each of these projects has already been designed, or is 

being designed. State matching funds and real estate are now 

available.

NGB’s original budget submission, based on the approved DOD 

program memorandum, the POM, was $61.68 million. During the 

budget review process, DOD deferred two projects totaling $3.4 

million to late r years, and deleted an $8.98 million project, reducing the fiscal year 1980 budget request to $49.3 million. The Office 

of Management and Budget further reduced the fiscal year 1980 

budget request to $30 million. Again, the reduction has no apparent relation to the previously approved DOD requirement.

Attached to my statement is a list of 40 additional urgently 

needed Air National Guard projects in 22 states, with a total cost 

of $47 million.

Mr. Chairman, and members, we deeply appreciate the generous 

support your committee has always given our program. We ask 

that you recommend an MCARNG appropriation of $60 million, 

and an MCANG appropriation of $61 million for fiscal year 1980. 

Further we ask your support in eliminating factors which impede 

National Guard military construction program execution.

Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to attem pt to answer any of your 

questions.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you, General.

General Roberts, would you like to proceed?
246

Reser ve Off ic er s Assoc ia tion of the U nit ed Sta tes

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. J. MILNOR ROBERTS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

PREPARED STATEMENT

G enera l Rob er ts. M r. C h air m an , we a re very ple as ed to be h ere 

w it h yo u th is m orn in g to re vie w th e pro pose d budget fo r th e re ­

se rv e forces. W it h y o u r perm is si on, I w ou ld li ke to su b m it th e 

e n ti re sta te m e n t fo r th e re co rd .

S en ato r H uddl es to n. W it h o u t ob je ct io n, so ord ere d.

[T he sta te m e n t follo ws :]
Statement of Maj . Gen . J. Milnor Rober ts, Aus Ret .

Mr. Chairman and Members o f the Committee:

We ar e most appre cia tive o f the op po rtun ity to appear be fore th is committee

on be half o f the Reserve O ff ic ers As so ciation of the Un ite d Sta te s. This committee

knows we repres en t the composite voice of 115.0 00 m il it a ry o ffic e rs , many of whom

are community lead ers na tio nw ide, and th at we speak w it h in the co ntex t o f our

Congressional Iy Ch artered ob je cti ve - to support a m il it a ry polic y fo r the Un ited

States th at w ill prov ide an adequate na tional secu ri ty .

Mr. Chairman, the ROA is in acco rd w ith the time-w orn but tim e-p roved

truism "Pe ople ar e our most Important a ss e t. " We als o understand th at to be

e ffe c tiv e In a wartim e environment people need hardware - sh ip s, tank s, a ir c r a f t ,

and myriads of oth er Items from exotic weapons systems to ty pew ri te rs . However,

we are concerned th at too often the acc eptance of w arf ig h ting and pr ep aration

requirements tends to stop with these more obvious necessitie s. E specia lly in

times of a monetary crun ch, the more mundane and less glamorous but equally

important support req uirem ents ar e often giv en scant consid era tion. That is why

we are he re. We know, as do a ll members of th is subcommittee, th at FY 1980 w ill

be a tough year fo r Reserve Forces Rec ru itin g and th at alre ad y the Army Guard and

Reserve are s u ff eri n g in Selected Reserve str ength . We believe th at i f people

are to be exp ected to jo in and remain w ith Reserve units the y must see evide nce

th at th e ir Service car es about them enough to provide proper housing fo r th e ir

tr ain in g a c tiv it ie s and fo r proper maintenance o f weapons systems upon which th e ir

lives may one day depend.

ROA well understands a u s te rit y in the Defense budget, dut ju s t as the

th ir d leg is absolu te ly necessary fo r a th re e- le gge d s to o l, so a r e a lis tic constr u cti on program is v ita l to complement the req uirem ents fo r personnel and

equipment.

ARMY

The USAR has serio us streng th problems which impact d ir e c tly on th e ir

mission read ines s. The m ajo ri ty of these have been addressed to the Congress.

Recommended so lu tions ar e being considered such as re en lis tm en t bonuses, expansion

o f the fu ll tim e manning program, man day support o f loca l and reserve re c ru it e rs ,

and expanded ove rseas tra in in g . A ll these ar e necessary, but In additio n th er e is

a need fo r a s ati sfa cto ry lo ca tion fo r Res er vists to conduct tra in in g , stor e

equipment and hold th e ir me etings.
At the pre sent tim e th e re a re over 1,0 00 USAR t r a in in g cen te rs lo cate d

th ro ughout th e U nited S ta te s . The re pla ce m en t o r re c o n s tr u c ti o n o f th es e

f a c i l i t i e s is pl an ne d a t th e normal ra te o f 42 each y e a r. This re pla ce m en t is

based on a l i f e span o f 25 years per f a c i l i t y . Du ring th e ye ars 1972 to 1977 th e

USAR av er ag ed 40 re pl ac em en ts per y e a r. The FY 1900 bu dg et w il l redu ce th a t

fig u re to 13 , and a t th e c u rre n t fu ndin g le v e ls USAR co n s tr u c ti o n bac klog w ill

in crease. Modern and fu n c ti o n a l f a c i l i t i e s enhance t ra in in g and impa ct fa vo rab ly

upon re c ru it m e n t, re te n tio n , and s ta tu re in th e c i v il i a n co mmun ities In wh ich

th ey a re lo c a te d . The USAR, in o rd e r to m ain ta in it s f a c i l i t y in ven to ry by

re p la c in g thes e f a c i l i t i e s which have d e te rio ra te d or become o b s o le te , would

re q u ir e 6 1 .5 m il li o n d o ll a rs in FY 19 00 .

As a minimum we recommend th a t th e FV 1980 budget fo r m aj or c o n s tr u c ti o n

in th e USAR to be in cr ea se d over th e OSD prop os al by 2 3 .9 m illio n ,

p ro je c ts th a t co uld be ac co mplishe d w it h th es e a d d it io n a l fu ndin gs

as fo ll o w s :

MILITARY CONSTRUCT I Oil, ARMY RESERVE

POTENTIAL PROJECTS

FY 153 0

STATE/INSTALLATI01I/PR0JECT

Alabama

Knox F ie ld

600-He mber US Army Re serve C e n te r/ O rg a n iz a tl o n a l

Maintenan ce Sh op /Area Maintenan ce Su pp or t A c t iv it y /

Equip ment C o ncentr ation S ite

Cal I fo rn la

Los Alam i tos

600 -Mem ber US Army Re serve Cente r and A lte ra tio n

o f E x is tin g USAR B u ild in g s

I l l i n o i s

J o lic t

J o lie t Weekend T ra in in g S ite

Hew Jer se y

Ed i son

Expand to 600-Member US Army Res erve C ente r ( In k s te r,

M ic hig an p ro je c t was o r ig in a lly In th e FY 80 prog ram,

ho wev er, I t has been exp edited and re pla ced Edison , New

Jers ey in th e FY 79 prog ram. Ed ison w il l not be read y

fo r b id u n t il FY 8 0 .)

Hew Yo rk

F o rt T o tt e n

2400-Mem ber US Army Re se rve C ente r w it h Med ical W in g/

Command and Control A re a /O rg a n lz a ti o n a l Mainten an ce

Sho p/ Are a M ainten an ce Su pp or t A c ti v it y /D S -G S M ainten an ce

Sho p/ Are a Equipment Compound

Texas

Houston

120 0-Member US Army Re se rve C ente r w it h Med ical U ln g /

O rg a n iz a ti o n a l M ainten an ce Sho p/ Are a M ainten an ce Su pp ort

A c tiv ity

A 11s t o f th e

is lis te d

ESTIMATED

COST ($ 000)

2.7 43

3,2 40

1. 025

2, 23 1

9,9 18

3.9 85

P o rt A rth u r

Expand to 200-Member US Army Re se rve C ente r w it h

O rg a n iz a ti o n a l Mainten an ce Shop 878
249

NAVAL AND flARIHE CO',.<b RESERVE

Mr. Chairmap, as you know the Navy's Sc dec ted Reserve has for the past

three years suffered traumatic attacks by the Admin istratio n in tha t in each of

these year.s the Secretary of Defense has endeavored to sl ic e 35,000 to <*0,000 from

the strength of these forces. Ax ioma tically, such arb itra ry action caused unrest

among the Reservists resu lting In consequent d if fi c u lt y in maintaining authorized

strength . Compounding the uncertainty of strength autho rizations has been the

weakened morale associated with performance of d ril ls in inadequate and unwholesome

surroundings. Cer tainly d ril li n g amid dry ro t, tack of a ir con ditioning in summer,

and inadequate space for training does not enhance enthusiasm for remaining in the

Reserve unit.

While it is understood tha t a ll Services* Reserve constru ction requests

are sharing some reductions for Pf 1930, a 45 percent sl ic e for the Naval Reserve

is considered un re alistic. The proposed cut of 13 m ill io n do lla rs w il l force

deferment of two sorely needed Reserve Centers, a stru ctured fir e fig hting building

for a large a ir st at io n, and oth er requirements for the Naval and Marine Corps

Reserve. With a $200 m ill io n con stru ction backlog th is cut means tha t other

c rit ic a l building requirements must also wai t.

R0A believes that while some belt-tig hte nin g Is understandable, loss of

such a large increment of a rela ti vely small con stru ction request could be

disastrous in Its effect on maintenance of streng th, trainin g ca pab ility and

safety for the Reserve forces ; we therefo re urge restor ation of the $13 m illion

to the m ilitary construction budget fo r the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve.

AIR FORCE

The Air Force FT 1980 M ilitary Construction Budget was reduced by the

OSD at the last moment before the budget was submitted. The USAFR share of the

reduction was 5.5 m illio n of a 15 m illio n dollar program. This represents a

on e-third reduction which In our opinion is unacceptable for a small ap prop ria tion.

The USAFR backlog of projects is of a magnitude that the current 5 year program

w il l not reduce the backlog at a ll - due to in fl ati o n , age of fa c il it ie s , and

mission changes tha t are tie d to modernization. The real effec t is tha t the

backlog w il l increase unless si gni fica nt support Is forthcoming from th is Committee.

It Is our understanding tha t the FY I98O program reduction resulted In a

50S eli mination of planned projec ts. This eli mination w ill Impact on the alread y

extens ive maintenance and repair program that has been ongoing for fa r too many

years in order to provide bare existence In many substandard fa c il it ie s . It is
250

the op inion o f the ROA th at among the in gre die nts which produce combat read ines s,

adequate f a c ilit ie s play a very important ro le . Proper tr ain in g f a c ilit ie s and

suitable workin g are as are fundamental to m ai nt ain morale, Improve tr ain in g and

enhance re te ntion and tr ain in g o f pe rson ne l. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the

re te nti on o f people is extre mely co st e ffe c tiv e and absolu te ly necessary in or de r

th at the Reserve components can meet th e ir manning go als.

The lump sum funding concept th at the Reserve Forces pre se ntly u t iliz e

should co nt inue . Because of the e ffo r t and co op eration by the A ir Force to

modernize the Reserve components, th ere have been and pro bably w ill co ntinue to

be la s t minute program aju stm ents based on budgetary co nstrai nts which e ffe c t the

forces assigned to the Res erves. The Reserve components need the lump sum concept

in or de r to have the f le x ib ilit y to make programmatic adjustments in the m il it a ry

co ns truc tio n program.

Hr. Chairman, due to the many management in it ia tiv e s In sti tu te d by

Maj. Gen. Lyon, which are too numerous to ela bora te on at th is tim e, the

A ir Force Reserve has been successful in exc eeding it s au th or ized st reng th fo r

FY 1978 and In producing combat read y units braced and ready to f u l f i l l th e ir

wartim e mission . Your con tinued support In meetin g the FY 1900 m il it a ry constr u cti on program requirements is urg en tly needed and s o li c it e d .

In summation, Mr. Chairman, ROA be liev es th at in the severe Reserve

Manpower shortag e s it u ati o n we now face i t is a good investment to enhance those

programs th at w ill draw pros pe ctive Rec ru its and re ta in cu rren t Se lected Re se rvists

not sla sh them. The severe cuts in M il it a ry Con struction budgets fo r FY I98O w ill

not on ly dis allow pro je cts needed to support high er morale, b ett er public image,

more adequate tr ain in g c a p a b il it ie s and enhanced s afe ty , but w i ll, In fa c t, be a

regression in the Ser vi ce s' programs to att ack the huge backlog o f requ ired

Con struction pro je cts , Ue urge th is sub comm itte e's earnest co ns id er at ion to

re sto re fun ding to the Reserve M il it a ry Con stru ction budget to provide a ll of the

urgent pro je cts which were cut in the current budget.
251

General Roberts. In the interest of time, I would like to review 

some excerpts from it, and some comment.

We have heard a good bit this morning about details. I would 

like to comment briefly about the philosophy.

Mr. Chairman, the Reserve Officers Association is in accord with 

the long proven truism tha t people are our most important asset. 

We also understand that to be effective in a wartim e environment, 

people need hardware, ships, tanks, aircraft, myriads of other 

items, from exotic weapon systems to typewriters.

However, we are concerned tha t too often the acceptance of war 

fighting and preparation requirements tend to stop with these 

more obvious necessities. Especially in times of a monetary crunch, 

the more mundane and less glamorous but equally important support requirements are often given scant consideration. That is why 

we are here.

We know, as do all members of this subcommittee, tha t fiscal 

year 1980 will be a tough year for Reserve forces recruiting, and 

that already the Army Guard and Reserve are suffering in selected 

reserve strength. We believe that if people are to be expected to 

join and remain with Reserve units they must see evidence that 

their service cares about them enough to provide proper housing 

for th eir training activities and for proper main tenance of weapons 

systems upon which the ir lives may one day depend.

ROA well understands austerity in the Defense budget. But just 

as the third leg is absolutely necessary for a three-legged stool, so a 

realistic construction program is vital to complement the requirements for personnel and equipment.

With regard to the Army Reserve, the requirement there is 

actually in the order of $62 million per year. This budget asks for 

approximately $25 million. We believe that that figure is far too 

low to do the realistically.

We have submitted with our statem ent a list of seven additional 

projects which we believe have priority consideration. These total 

$23.9 million, and this, when added to $25 million, would still be 

substantially below the requirement. So we ask your consideration 

for these additional projects which we believe are very vitally 

needed, and which would still be below what the requirement is, in 

the philosophy of prudence at this time, in this especially constrain ed year.

With regard to the Navy, they have a $200 million construction 

backlog, and the $13 million cut which has been proposed, we 

believe, is too much for the Navy Reserve, including the Marine 

Corps. We ask that you restore the $13 million.

The Air Force has shown a requirement for a $15 million program, which has been reduced by $5.5 million. We believe th at this, 

again, is too severe a cut in proportion, and we ask that that figure 

be restored.

We also ask, in the case of the Air Force, tha t you continue to 

authorize the lump sum concept which is needed for flexibility, 

because as times and conditions change, so do the requirements, 

and they should have the flexibility to meet this situation.

In summary, on our philosophy, we believe that Reserve Forces 

are more vitally needed tha t at any time prior in our history. We 

have a very urgent problem of strength maintenance, particularly
252

in the Army. We believe that the facilities needed to train this 

force are as important as some of the weapons which these forces 

would use.

For tha t reason, we ask for careful consideration of our request.

I will be happy to answer questions late r on.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you very much, General.

We will now hear from General Wallace. As I mentioned earlier, 

Senator Sasser, a very valued member of this subcommittee, has a 

particular interest in military construction problems all over the 

United States, and around the world, as a matter of fact. Since you 

come from his State, he may have some comments tha t he would 

like to make.

Senator Sasser. T hank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to welcome Gen. Carl Wallace to this committee 

this morning. General Wallace is, in my judgment, one of th e most 

able adjutant generals in the National Guard. He is president of 

the Adjutants General Association of the United States, and is 

doing an admirable and outstanding job as the adjutant general of 

the Tennessee National Guard.

As a matter of fact, General Wallace, we have even discussed 

your good work, in your absence, before this committee in the past. 

I want to welcome you before the committee, and say that we look 

forward, particularly, to hearing your testimony.

General Wallace. Thank you very much, Senator Sasser.

Adjutants General Association of the United States

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. CARL I). WALLACE, PRESIDENT, ADJUTANTS

GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

PREPARED STATEMENT

General Wallace. Senator Sasser, we in Tennessee are also very 

proud of you, especially from the Guard standpoint, of your help, 

interest, and support. What we have before you today is very 

critical to us.

I am also very happy, Mr. Chairman, to have the opportunity to 

represent a State as well as the adju tants general across the States, 

and see what impact it has on Tennessee.

I also have a prepared statement, which I would like to have 

submitted for the record.

Senator Huddleston. Without objection, it will be inserted in the 

record.

[The statemen t follows:]
253

Statement of Maj. Gen , Carl D. Wallace

Mr. Chairman, and members of the oaimittee, I am Major General Carl 

Wallace, President of the Adjutants General Association of the United States 

and Adjuta nt General of Tennessee.

I appreciate very muc h the opportunity to appear before your corcnittee, 

and I am mindful of the great support this oarmittee has provided to the 

National Guard Mili tary Construction Program in past years.

The severe reductions which would be imposed on the Army and Air Guard 

construction programs by the Fiscal Year 1980 Budget Request will impede 

readiness improvement of the National Guard. In addition, new rules imposed 

by the Department of Defense will make State management of the Army National 

Guard Military Construction Program almost impossible.

My purpose today is to ccrrment briefly on the impact of the budget cuts 

and the ne w rules on the program nationally, and to demonstrate the impact on 

the State of Tennessee.

National Guard units with a strength of abo ut 300,000 were mobilized for 

World War II.

After World Wa r II, the Federal government asked the States to organize 

and maint ain a mu ch larger force structure, i.e. more units, wit h a strength 

requirement in excess of 500,000. Readiness requirements were increased. 

Equipment inventories became so large that storage and maintenance could not 

be acoarplished in the pre-World War II facilities which had been provided by 

the several States. Recognizing that the States woul d be unable to finance all 

of the construction costs which had been generated by the increase in size and 

structure of the National Guard, Congress passed Public Law 783 in 1950. This 

law authorized the Secretary of Defense to contribute funds appropriated by 

Congress for the construction of National Guard armories and other facilities. 

P.L. 783 provides for a Federal contribution of 75 percent of the cost of 

construction of an armory. The State provides the real estate, pays for 25 

percent of the cost of constructing an armory, and agrees to maintain the 

armory far a period of 25 years. The State pays all of the operating costs, 

e.g. heat, light,-water, etc. The result is that the State provides more than 

50 percent of the life cycle costs of an armory.

41-638 0 - 7 9 - 1 7
254

In prograrriuing armory construction in his State, the Adjutant General 

must consider unit needs, available real estate, willingness of the State 

legislature to appropriate State funds and the interests of the many carruunities of the State. The adjutant General must provide adequate facilities for 

all of the units which the Federal government has asked his State to organize 

and maintain. New DoD rules will permit Federal contribution for the construction of armories for only those units whi ch are scheduled for very early deployment overseas.

I question that State legislatures will be willing to continue appropriating State funds for the construction, operation and maintenance of National 

Guard armories if State authorities are to be denied the opportunity to have 

any say about what projects are to be built in their State. The dictatorial 

attitude of the DoD may well cause the States t o suggest that if the Federal 

government demands full control, they should pay the full cost.

last year, DoD advised the Congress that the FY 1980 military construction requirement for the Army National Guard was $58 million. The FY 1980 

Budget Request is for only $20 million. Last year, the DoD-approved FY 1980 

Air National Guard construction requirement was $61 million. The FY 1980 Budget 

Request for Air Nation al Guard construction is only $30 million. These budget 

cuts are so severe that the proposed annual programs are smaller than the 

amount of cost increase that occurs each year due to inflation. The result 

is that the backlog of required construction is increasing rather than 

decreasing. I question that the FY 1980 program can even build the facilities 

required to support already planned Air National Guard conversions.

New I’d like to put this in the perspective as it applies to one State — 

Tennessee.

The National Guard Bureau and the State of Tennessee had planned to build 

seven Army National Guard facilities in FY 1980. Those projects included one 

Unit Training Equipment Site, one Range Ccnplex, one Organizational Maintenance 

Shop and four armories. The State of Tennessee has the real estate. State 

funds are available, a nd the projects are already designed or under design.

The total Federal cost of the facilities is about $4 million.
255

The National Guard Bureau and the State of Tennessee planned to build a 

badly needed maintenance control facility for the Air National Guard KC-135 

Refueling Group at Knoxville. This unit stands alert for, and flies refueling 

missions for, the Strategic Air Canrand. It needs the maintenance control 

facility to properly maintain its aircraft for this important Air Foroe mission, 

but the DoD cuts in the Air National Guard construction program deleted the 

facility.

Today's cost of the Tennessee National Guard construction backlog of 

required, bu t unfunded, facilities is over $22 million for the Army National 

Guard and is over $17.5 million for the Air National Guard.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for presenting such a bleak picture. However, 

the construction programs of the Army and Air National Guard ca n never provide even minimu m essential facilities whe n annual appropriations ar e not 

even as large as annu al cost increase due to inflation. Secondly, it is my 

opinio n that many-States may be unwi lling to oontinue support of the Army 

National Gu ard construction program if States a re not permitted to build 

facilities as dictated by the facilities priorities within each State.

Mr. Chairman, and members, I thank you for the opportunity to present 

my views as President of the Adjutants General Association and as the Adjutant 

General of Tennessee. I will be pleased to attenpt to answer your questions.

BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH OF MAJ. GEN. CARL D. WALLACE

.Malor General Carl D, Wallace

Date of Birth: 20 May 1931

Home Address: 205 Bartonwood Drive, Lebanon, Tennessee 37087 

M ilita ry Assignment: The Adjutant General, State of Tennessee

General Wa llac e's military career began when he enlisted in the U. S. Air 

Force in 1951. He then transferred to the U. S. Army and was commissioned 

a Second Lieutenant upon completion of OCS at Ft. S ill , Oklahoma.

He served with the 47th Infantry Divis ion at Ft. Rucker, Alabama before being 

assigned to the 45th Infantry Div ision in Korea.

General Wallace joined the Tennessee Army National Guard in 1955 and organized an Engineer Company in Waverly, Tennessee, serving as company 

commander. He later commanded a replacement detachment before becoming 

Command Information Officer on the Adjutant General's Staff. He served in 

that capacity un til his appointment as the 70th Adjutant General of Tennessee 

on January 18, 1975.
256

He wa s el ec te d pr es id en t of The Ad jutants Ge neral A ssoc iatio n of the U. S.o n 

June 18, 1977 , and se rv es in th at ca pacit y at th e pre se nt tim e.

Dec orations and Awards - Merito rio us Se rvice M ed al, Good Co nd uct M ed al, 

Nati on al De fen se Service M ed al, Korean Se rvice Me dal wi th tw o bron ze sta rs , 

Armed Fo rce s Reser ve Medal with hour- gla ss devic e, Army Re serve Co mp one nts 

Achievem ent Med al. Republic of Korea Pr es id en tial Unit C it ati on, Un ited 

Na tions Service Med al, Ten ne ss ee Nati on al Guard Co mm end ation Ribbon with 

Oak Leaf C lu st er , Te nn es se e Nationa l Guard Comm end atio n Ribbon wi th two 

Oak Leaf C lu st ers , Go ve rnor's Merito rio us Unit Citat io n wi th two Se rvice S ta rs , 

Ten ne ss ee Na tio nal Guard D isting ui sh ed Unit Comm end atio n with on e Oak Leaf 

C lu st er, Te nn es se e Na tio na l Guard Se rvice Ribbon wi th Bronze Se rvice St ar , 

and th re e Oak Leaf C lu st ers , and th e Te nn es se e Nati on al Guard Volunteer Ribbon

Civic Af filiat ion s - Lions Clu b; American Legion; Ve terans of Foreign Wa rs;

State Crusade Chairm an Ame rican Can ce r So cie ty from 19 65 -197 0; Board of 

Dire ctors of C as tle He igh ts M ili tary Aca demy, Lebanon, Ten ne ss ee ; St ate 

He art Fund Ch airma n, 1978; member Board of D irec to rs , Regio nal Medica l 

Program; member of Board of A ss ocia te s, Unive rsity of Ten ne ss ee at N as hv ill e; 

form er member of Lebanon Ten ne ss ee Planning Co mm ission an d Wilson County 

Electio n Comm ission; th ir ty -s ec ond de gree Sc ot tish Rite Ma son; member First 

Bap tis t Ch urch, Lebanon, Ten ne ssee ; member Board of Dire ctor s of M us cu lar 

Dy strophy Assoc iatio n.

Civ ilia n Edu cati on - Attended th e Ste wa rt Cou nty High Sc ho ol, Aus tin Peay 

St at e Unive rsity and th e Unive rsity of Ten ne ss ee .

M ili tar y Educati on - Food Se rvice Sc ho ol, Ft . Knox, KY; Ch em ical Ba cte rio logi ca l and Ra diolog ica l (CBR) Sc ho ol, Kure, Japan; Artill ery Of fic er Basic Sc ho ol, 

Ft . Sil l, Okla hom a; Eng ineer Sc ho ol, Ft. Bolivar, Virginia; Ad juta nt Ge neral 

Sc ho ol, Ft. Benjamin Harriso n, Ind ian a; Command and Gen eral Sta ff Col le ge ,

Ft . Leavenwo rth , Kansa s; The Defen se Str ate gy Se minar, Nati on al War College 

at Ft . M cN air , ’W ashing ton, D. C.

Civ ilia n Oc cupatio n - Prior to en ter ing ac tive mili tary se rv ic e, Gen eral W allace 

was a repo rte r for the C la rk sv ille Leaf Chron icl e . Upon re le ase from act iv e 

du ty , he res um ed hi s ca re er in journa lis m and was nam ed ed ito r of the Waverly 

New s-Dem oc rat, 1954. In 19 64 , he became the ed ito r of th e Le bano n-De mo cra t 

and rem ain ed in th at ca pa ci ty un til being plac ed on militar y le av e st atu s to 

acce pt the appo intm en t as the Adjuta nt Gen era l of Ten ne ss ee in 1975.

Marita l Statu s - Gen eral W alla ce is marrie d to the former Yvonne Sand ers of 

C la rk sv ille and Par is , T en nes se e. They ha ve on e so n, Car l D ou glas , Jr. , 

a gr ad ua te of C as tle Heig hts Militar y Academy and is pre se ntly stud ying at 

Carso n Newman C olleg e.
257

General Wallace. The severe reduction which would be imposed 

on the Army and Air Guard construction by the fiscal year 1980 

budget request will impede readiness improvement of the National 

Guard. In addition, the new rules imposed by the DOD will make 

State management of the Army National Guard military construction program almost impossible.

My purpose today is to comment briefly on the impact of the 

budget cuts and on the new rules of th e program nationally, and to 

demonstrate the impact, specifically on the State of Tennessee.

Let me just review for a meet the law. The National Guard units 

with a strength of about 300,000 were mobilized for World W ar II. 

After World War II, the Federal Government asked the States to 

organize and maintain a much large r force structure, more units 

with a strength requirement in excess of 500,000.

Readiness requirements were increased. Equipment inventories 

became so large that storage and maintenance could not be accomplished in the pre-World War II facilities, which had been provided 

for several States. Recognizing t ha t the State s would be unable to 

finance all of the construction costs which had been generated by 

the increase in size and structure of the National Guard, Congress 

passed Public Law 783 in 1950.

This law authorized the Secretary of Defense to contribute funds, 

appropriated by Congress, for the construction of National Guard 

armories and other facilities. It might be interesting to note here 

tha t prior to that time, many States took funds out of their own 

budgets, and built those facilities for the National Guard, and we 

still have many of them in Tennessee today.

Public Law 783 provides for a Federal contribution of 75 percent 

of the cost of construction of an armory. The State provides the 

real estate, pays for 25 percent of the cost of constructing the 

armory, and agrees to maintain that armory for a period of 25 

years.

The State pays all of the operating costs, the heat, the light, the 

water, telephone. The result is that the State provides more than 

50 percent of the life-cycle costs of an armory.

In programing an armory construction in his State, the Adjutant 

General must consider the unit needs, available real estate, willingness of the State legislature to appropriate State funds, and the 

interest along with additional funds of the many communities of 

the State.

The Adjutant must provide adequate facilities for all of the units 

which the Federal Government has asked his State to organize and 

maintain. Now, the new DOD rules will permit Federal contribution for the construction of armories for only those units which are 

scheduled for early deployment overseas. A new guideline, a new 

rule, a new game.

I question jus t how long th e State legislatures will be willing to 

continue to appropriate State funds for the construction, operation 

and maintenance of National Guard armories if States are going to 

be denied the opportunity to have any say about where the projects 

ought to be built in their State.

The dictatorial attitude of the DOD may well cause the States to 

suggest that if the Federal Government demands full control, they 

should pay the full cost.
258

Last year, DOD advised the Congress that fiscal year 1980 military construction requirements for the Army National Guard was 

$58 million. This is what we planned on. The fiscal year 1980 

budget request is only for $20 million.

Last year, the DOD approved fiscal year 1980 Air National 

Guard construction requirement of $61 million. Again tha t is what 

we planned on. The fiscal year 1980 budget request for Air National Guard construction is only $30 million.

These budget cuts are so severe, Mr. Chairm an, that the proposed annu al programs are smaller than the amount of cost increase tha t occurs each day due to inflation. The result is th at the 

backlog of required construction is increasing rat her than decreasing.

I question tha t the fiscal year 1980 program can even build a 

facility required to support already planned Air National Guard 

conversions.

Now, let me, if you will, just for a moment put this into perspective for one State, and that is the State of Tennessee. The National 

Guard Bureau in the State of Tennessee had planned to build 

seven Army National Guard facilities in fiscal year 1980. These 

projects included one unit training equipment site, one range complex, one organizational maintenance shop, and four armories.

The State of Tennessee has the real estate. The State of Tennessee has the money, and these projects are already designed or 

under design. I will be happy to furnish you a list of those, Senator 

Sasser, if you would like to know those particular locations.

Senator Sasser. I would like to very much.

General Wallace. In addition, on March 5, we were also notified 

tha t seven additional projects were to be canceled. The total 

amount of these projects, or the impact on the State of Tennessee, 

is approximately $11 million.

In addition to that, the National Guard Bureau in the State of 

Tennessee planned to build a badly needed maintenance control 

facility for the Air National Guard KC-135 Refueling Group at 

Knoxville.

This unit stands alert for, and flies refueling missions almost on 

a daily basis for the Strategic Air Command. It needs the maintenance control facility to properly maintain its aircraft, but the 

DOD cuts in the Air National Guard construction program deleted 

this facility.

Let me just mention briefly the backlog. Today’s cost of the 

Tennessee National Guard’s backlog of required, but unfunded 

facilities is over $22 million for th e Army National Guard, and it is 

over $17.5 million for the Air National Guard.

Projects needed, projects directed by the DOD, given to the State, 

but yet the construction is unfunded. I will be happy, Mr. Chairman, to furnish you a list of those, if you so desire.

Senator Huddleston. Yes.

General Wallace. I thin k that it is important, especially in a 

State, to keep in mind the symbolic importance of the National 

Guard armories in the local communities, particula rly the small 

town of rural America. This is the heartland of support for American defense, and the source of many of our volunteers, both for the 

Army and the National Guard.
259

Here, the National Guard armory is not only the social center 

for its community, it is the place where most of the social events 

are held, and those ranging from charity bazars to Boy Scout 

banquets. A center of many civic projects, emergency or disaster 

relief, and probably the largest public hall in th e community.

Almost every National Guard Armory is, in principle, if not the 

only direct communication that the U.S. Army has with the entire 

community, of all ages, and interests. To most citizens, traditionally, the N ational Guard is the Army.

Unfortunately, as our training becomes directed to early mobilization and deployment, our troop structure and management control are more exacting, and the urgent needs of the defense 

demand priority use for military training.

We can see less consideration being allowed for community 

needs. Couple that with the skyrocketing increase in the cost of 

real estate, which we require the local governments to contribute, I 

think in fairness DOD and Congress should consider funding 100 

percent of the cost of this construction.

To an increasing degree, almost with every project, the Federal 

constraints dictate our construction, from the design to the labor 

costs, contract provisions, minority and environmental considerations, the usage and energy conservation requirements. These are 

becoming Federal facilities.

It hardly seems fair for the State and local governments to 

contribute not only valuable land, removed from the tax rolls, but 

25 percent of the construction costs, and carry the entire heavy 

burden of maintenance after construction for the life of that 

armory.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for presenting such a bleak picture. 

The construction programs of the Army and Air National Guard 

can never provide even minimal, essential facilities when annu al 

appropriations are not even as large as annual costs.

Second, it is my opinion that many States may be unwilling to 

continue support of the Air National Guard construction program, 

if the States are not permitted to build facilities, as dictated by the 

facility priorities w ithin each State.

I urge you to restore no less than the $40 million taken away by 

the Department of Defense.

Mr. Chairman, and members, I than k you for the opportunity to 

present my views as President of the adju tants general association, 

and as the adju tant general of Tennessee. I will be most happy to 

atte mpt to answer any questions which you might have.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you, General.

Now, let us see if we can get the panel back around the table, 

and Senator Sasser and I have some questions and comments.

I just have a few questions, and then it will be necessary for me 

to go to another committee meeting. Senator Sasser will continue 

with this committee for as long as he desires.

COMMITTEE CONCERNS

First, gentlemen, it has been alluded by some of you, and I th ink 

the record indicates, that the subcommittee has been receptive to 

the proposals tha t have been submitted by members of the services
260

during our hearings. We have tried to be responsive to needs, to 

the exten t that we were able to.

Since I have been a member of the subcommittee, I think tha t 

we have recognized the importance of the Guard and Reserve. We 

talk frequently with the active counterpart about the capability 

and readiness of our forces, and in every instance there is always 

the insistence tha t it is the Guard and Reserve that gives us the 

ability to meet challenges that may occur all around the world.

So we are concerned that you have the facilities, the equipment, 

the personel and other things necessary to maintain the kind of 

strength tha t you need to fulfill your mission.

This is an austere year. I am concerned about the percentage of 

cuts. I am concerned about the backlog. I am concerned tha t you 

have what is necessary to att rac t people to fill your ranks. We are 

very interested in getting all the information we can relating to 

these particular subjects.

EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION ON PERSONAL LEVELS

What correlation is there between having good facilities and 

being able to attract the personnel tha t you need and keep the 

personnel strength up to necessary standards?

Can you pinpoint a definite correlation there? I will sta rt with 

General Weber.

General Weber. I will star t by saying t ha t as the National Guard 

entered its role in the total force, as the new and more modern 

equipment came into our units, we did, in fact, emphasize the nonarmory construction as having priority for providing facilities for 

the new equipment, training areas to support them, and tha t type 

of thing.

So for a period of 5 or 6 years, during the 1970’s, we did emphasize the nonarmory construction. We were busy doing that. Of 

necessity, we gave improper attention to our armories.

As we have conducted surveys across the United States, and as 

we have had the various meetings and dealings with the problems 

associated with acquiring new people for the Guard, the proper 

training facility has surfaced continually as a major contributor to 

getting people, keeping people, and using thei r time to good advantage.

We feel very strongly that there is a definite correlation between 

the facilities in which our troops train and operate, and our 

strength figures.

Senator Huddleston. Let me add to that question whether or 

not we get into a “Catch-22” situation when we have a project tha t 

may be deferred or eliminated because a unit does not achieve a 

certain streng th level, whereas if it had tha t particular facility, it 

might be in a bette r position to enhance its strength. Is this a 

problem?

General Weber. Very definitely, sir. Our surveys have supported 

tha t contention as well.

Senator Huddleston. Would the other components like to comment on these two questions?

General Conaway. Mr. Chairman, a very specific example—the 

Air National Guard unit tha t you would be close to is in Kentucky.
261

There is a Kentucky Air National Guard unit at Louisville, which 

has completed a squadron operations facility, a fuel cell maintenance facility, and an avionics building in the last 3 or 4 years.

This unit prior to construction was having to double people up to 

find room to perform missions and conduct training. There were 

very crowded conditions for most of the training tha t took place. 

This did impact both recruiting and retention. These young people 

came in from from all over Kentucky to participate in crowded 

conditions, trying to maintain combat ready organizations.

Today, with these new facilities, people can come out and work 

in the avionics shop, or come out and work in operations, personal 

equipment, life support, whatever they are in. They can perform 

their specialty in a facility designed and constructed for that purpose. With the conversion to the RF-4 aircraft in Louisville, they 

are now a C-l organization. I credit a grea t part of that to the 

facilities.

They have very good people, and good m anagement as well. They 

are one of our high priority organizations in the Air Force. They 

are also today 104-percent manned. Tha t has a very definite correlation to obtaining new facilities.

Senator Huddleston. What do you mean by C-l?

General Conaway. C-l is the highest combat ready status that 

you can have in the Department of Defense for the Air Force. C-4 

is non-combat ready. C-3 is partially. C-2 is combat ready with 

limitations. C-l is a fully combat ready organization with no limitations, ready to go, as this unit is, in 24 hours to any location that 

they desire to.

In the State of Tennessee, where we have a backlog, as we do in 

all states including Kentucky, a very definite example that our 

facilities have impacted our training is the Air National Gua rd’s 

Professional Education Center in Knoxville, which trains personnel 

for Officer Candidate School, NCO Academy, and leadership tra ining from all over the United States, the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico.

They have just gone into some remodeled older facilities, and 

these facilities are going to greatly enhance the training of Guardsmen throughout the United States. The facilities that they are in 

are conducive to better training.

So we have many vivid examples of that throughout the country, 

where it has helped us, and where we need the help also for units 

that are converting, which have people on top of each other, so to 

speak, as they convert to these complex weapon systems.

So those are two examples.

Senator Huddleston. General Mohr?

General Mohr. Yes, sir. I think that you have touched on a very 

critical point insofar as the people and this matter are concerned. 

We have done some surveys that tell us why many of our people 

leave th e Reserve and what the causes of the ir dissatisfaction with 

the Reserve are.

A lot of th at relates to the training facilities, the ability to train 

properly, especially in home stations. This relates, of course, to the 

adequacy of the training centers, and the training facilities that we 

have to offer during both annual training and during the homestation training phase.
262

I will give you an example of a training center at 601 Hardesty 

in Kansas City, which was formerly used for the storage of casualties returned from combat. An active railroad track and a siding 

run on both sides of th at building. This is an Army Reserve Training Center today, and this is the kind of situation that we are 

working to correct.

You can not conduct proper training and people get dissatisfied 

and leave. It does not give the proper image of the Federal Government or the Army Reserve to the people who might be coming into 

the units, nor does it encourge them to stay.

I think tha t you have hit on a very critical point that I think 

deserves a great deal of atte ntion. I also point out to you that even 

with funding at the stay-even point of $62 million per year we will 

not be able to work at eliminatin g our construction backlog. New 

recruits enlisting today at locations may not even see their new 

training center started for perhaps 20 years. By then they will 

have served the necessary number of years to retire.

So you see, we have quite a situation here, and the people 

interest thing, I don’t think could be over emphasized. Those who 

have touched on that, I certainly commend them, and agree with 

them.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you.

Admiral Kamm?

Admiral Kamm. I agree with the other speakers in everything 

they have said. I thin k that this is very important to all of us. 

Recruiting and retention of personnel are among our gravest problems in the Reserve and Guard forces.

Within the Naval Reserve and the Marine Corps Reserve, we 

have $199 million in deficiencies, and we have tried, within the 

fiscal constraints of the budget, to address the programs which will 

help us, not only in retaining people, but also, of course, in increasing the personnel readiness of the units.

Among the things we have tried to to do, is the construction of 

new centers to replace old and inadequate centers where we did 

not have facilities to support the type of sophisticated training 

programs which are essential to readiness. For example, we are 

proposing to construct a modern and efficient training center with 

the capability to support a shipboard simulation tra iner at Knoxville, Tenn.

Another example of the personnel readiness aspect and the 

combat unit readiness aspect is the project we have proposed to 

you for our engine test cell at the Naval Air Station in Dallas, 

which is to test the J-79 engine which is in the F-4 aircraft, 

belonging to two Reserve Navy fighter squadrons, and one Marine 

fighter squadron.

Also important, for the standpoint of readiness, is the attenu ­

ation of noise levels at our air stations to make it possible for 

personnel to work near the flight line. Relief of community objections to the environmental impact of this operation is also important. These just are a couple of examples of both personnel retention and recruiting, and of course most importantly readiness of 

the Reserve and the Guard forces, which are most directly related, 

I would say, to facility construction.

Senator Huddleston. T hank you.
263

General McAdoo?

General McAdoo. Sir, I agree with the comments of the other 

witnesses. As a previous wing commander, I am convinced that 

adequate, clean facilities do, in fact, enhance the morale of the 

reservists. Because of the pride which favorably affects th e training 

and competence of the unit members, I do, in fact, believe that the 

readiness of th at unit is improved.

Senator Huddleston. Let me suggest tha t it may be helpful to 

this subcommittee if your written presentation would cite some 

specific instances that would stress this correlation between the 

facilities and personnel retention and recruitment.

We are going through a period now where the draft is being 

considered again. There is very grave concern in Congress about 

personnel, and the force level for our military forces. I thin k tha t 

this might be helpful in making determinations on how funds are 

going to be spent.

General Weber. Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion along this 

line, which the committee might find useful. Almost in the shadow 

of th e Capitol, over here in Anacostia, you have a brandnew, tremendous facility, a combined Armed Forces Reserve center, which 

is being used by elements of the Navy, the Coast Guard, the 

Marine Corps, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve. I 

don’t believe that the Air Force is there, but just about everyone 

else is.

This is a very intensive facility. It might be useful to ask the 

services to give you the strength figures for those units in tha t 

center 1 year prior to occupancy, which I understand was last 

October, and see where it is now. Then next October, see where it 

is again.

Now, of course, you cannot reach a definite conclusion because 

other factors are at work. But this center is about one of the finest 

in the country. I think that it might be well worthwhile to get 

some statistics on it.

Senator Huddleston. Does anyone else w ant to comment on this 

particular question we are dealing with?

General Wallace. Other than to say, I agree totally with what 

has been said, Mr. Chairman. I think that it could be brought down 

to the bottom line. A good community, with a good armory, is going 

to have an increase. That which is on a back street, that which is 

not in public view, loses its incentive. Without that, we cannot 

continue to operate readiness units.

General Greenlief. Mr. Chairman, I think tha t they have said it 

all, and they have said it very well.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you, General.

KENTUCKY PROGRAMS

My time is runn ing out, but if Senator Sasser will perm it me a 

parochial question.

Senator Sasser. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask a couple 

myself.

Senator Huddleston. I would not be surprised. [Laughter.] I 

would like to review the construction projects in the budget request
264

that we are considering, for the State of Kentucky. We will start 

with General Weber.

General Weber. Mr. Chairman, one that we are considering in 

Kentucky is at London, Kentucky, a 100-person armory for the 

Army National Guard. There is nothing in the Air Guard’s budget 

this year.

Senator Huddleston. You have something at Bowman Field— 

land acquisition tha t is going on there unde r reprograming.

General Mohr. Sir, I will cover the construction projects th at we 

have in the State of Kentucky. We have a project for a maintenance facility at Fort Thomas which was awarded in October 1978 

for $815,000; at Lexington, we have a 400 member joint center, 

with the Navy t ha t was completed in February of 1979, $1,581,000 

is our share and the Navy’s share is $955,000. At Bowman Field we 

had a land acquisition project for $500,000. This required deficiency 

reprograming approval from the Appropriations Committees, 

which was received on March 6, 1979. On that site we have ongoing 

construction of an 800-member Army Reserve center awarded in 

August 1978 for $2,253,000.

We have under design, at Madisonville, a 100-member Army 

Reserve center expansion for $740,000. Design is now estimated to 

be completed in August. In our fiscal year 1980 request we have a 

maintenance facility at Fort Knox for $1,336,000. Design completion is scheduled for September of this year.

Included in our unprogramed requirements, we have projects at 

Bowman in Louisville, Ky., for an administrative area for $650,000; 

a maintenance shop at Maso, Ky., for $758,000. Going down the 

line, sir, we have facilities, also unprogramed, at Paducah, Owensboro, Ashland, Lexington, Hopkinsville, Frankfort, Bardstown, Fort 

Thomas, Georgetown, Richmond, Shelbyville, Lexington—an upgrading there—also Bowling Green.

We have a substantial number, but within the constraints under 

which we are now operating, these are unprogramed. I will be glad 

to submit this for the record.

Senator Huddleston. I would like to have that for my own 

benefit. You missed my hometown, but we are very close to Fort 

Knox, and anything we do there will help.

General Wallace. Senator, you may be surprised, but we have 

Kentucky projects. We have a project at Fort Campbell.

Senator Huddleston. Fort Campbell is in Kentucky.

General Greenlief. There is a Kentucky project on our list of 

projects, one that is required. It is at Williamsburg, and the price is 

$462,000 for the Federal contribution.

General Weber. Senator Huddleston, in the State of Kentucky, 

the State has a backlog of $13.3 million for 18 different projects, 

and one of those happens to be in Elizabethtown.

Senator Huddleston. We will see if we can give you all the 

support tha t you might require when tha t one comes up.

General Weber. It is also appropriate to tell you, to emphasize 

what General Greenlief has just said, that Bowling Green and Fort 

Knox were lost in th e reduction down to the $20 million figure tha t 

is in our package.
265

NATIONAL GUARD CONTRIBUTIONS IN PEACETIME

Senator Huddleston. There have been references made to the 

National Guard’s services to the States. We have been beset in 

Kentucky, and other States, too, from time to time, with a series of 

natural disasters in recent years. The tornadoes that we had back 

in 1973 or 1974, the serious flooding years. I ju st don’t know how 

we would have made it without the National Guard, whose services 

to our citizens have been inestimable. That alone, I think, makes 

the service extremely valuable, besides what it would mean in any 

kind of mobilization th at we may be confronted with.

Gentlemen, if you will excuse me, I will now tur n the Chair over 

to Senator Sasser. Let me express my gratitude to you, gentlemen. 

I hope t ha t you will do well with your authorizations, and we will 

do the best we can here.

General Conaway. Thank you.

General Mohr. Thank you.

FISCAL CONSTRAINTS

Senator Sasser. Gentlemen, certainly each member of this committee, and certainly the chairman is concerned with the readiness 

of the National Guard and Reserve. Quite a bit of attentio n was 

focused on that operational readiness in the last few months, as 

speculation began on whether or not there should be some changes 

in the military service.

The chairman and this committee are very much concerned 

about the slowdowns and cuts in military construction. There is no 

doubt about that. The chairman indicated that these are lean 

budget years. Indeed, they are.

As my own adju tant general knows, our State legislature has 

passed a resolution calling for a balanced budget. Our new Governor has indicated tha t he favors a balanced budget. My senior 

colleague in the Senate from Tennessee has state d he favors a 

constitutional amendment calling for a balanced budget.

I get literally hundreds of letters from people in my State saying, 

“Cut th e budget.”

So we must try to prioritize Federal spending. I am hopeful, and 

I intend to do what I can to see that the military standards, 

particularly the Reserve and the National Guard, do not get the 

short end of the stick when we star t prioritizing Federal spending.

PRIORITY FOR EARLY DEPLOYING UNITS

I was encouraged to learn from the statements that have been 

given here today tha t there appears to be a considerable priority 

assigned to units tha t have early mobilization deployment capabilities.

Does the fiscal year 1980 budget request take care of all outstanding deficiencies for units proposed for deployment within the 

first 30 days of a conflict, and if not, where are the major shortfalls?

I presume that we should sta rt with the Army in asking tha t 

question.
266

General Weber. I can answer the question in the reverse. All of 

the projects we have in the fiscal year 1980 program fall within the 

early deployment.

To answer the Senator’s question more directly, it does not take 

care of our outstanding deficiencies. As we are now putting together the 1981 budget, we can deal in t ha t y ear only with 38 States. So 

we are far short of meeting the requirements for the high priority 

early deployment.

General Mohr. For the Army Reserve, sir, I can respond to this 

in connection with the early deploying units, and whether or not 

they are all taken care of. I would say that the needs of the early 

deploying units relate to the statem ent that I made a while ago, we 

do need to see some improvements in our training facilities, and in 

our reserve centers to do that.

We have not been able within the budgetary constraints to take 

care of all these requirements. However, we are doing the best tha t 

we can to do that.

I would urge a work of caution in placing all of our eggs in the 

high priority basket, and the reason for that is that as you research the history of the past two mobilizations, you will find, from 

the Reserve point of view, it was not our early deploying units, or 

the units that we anticipated would be mobilized first, which were 

actually mobilized first.

So there is some reason for caution in that area, in that all of 

our units in our force structure within the Army Reserve are 

required for a specific mission, or in sustaining our training base 

for the Army.

So all of these units are required, and I would say within a 

relatively short time frame. So if we restrict ourselves to consideration of what is required in the first 30 days, we may well be cutting 

off our ability to sustain ourselves if the war lasts to day 31, or day 

61, or day 91.

I would be very concerned if the United States were forced into a 

consideration at that point because we have failed to provide for 

those units that are required, because they all are required.

General Conaway. Mr. Sasser, in the Air National Guard, all of 

our 91 flying units and 231 nonflying units have a 72-hour mobilization commitment, and are all ready to go within that period of 

time, may of th e units have a priority within that priority, and are 

mobilized within 24 hours.

Units, such as the unit at Knoxville, Tenn., the KC-135 unit, our 

SAC units, are performing Active Air Force missions on a daily 

basis. So the facilities required for these organizations are all high 

priority.

Our $30 million in projects that we have are all needed for the 

high-priority mobilization of these units. This is where we are in 

our request at this time.

General Wallace. Senator, let me add one thing. Out in the field 

we are concerned about reorganization, and it becomes, very frequently, tha t a reorganization can change the mission of that 

outfit, and just because today it does not fit into the day 30, but 

tomorrow it might because it falls into the full stru cture change.

That has not only hampered us in Tennessee, but helped us in a 

lot of cases. I think, when you consider the total problem, you must
267

consider the fact the force structure of what is going to be needed 

in a future year is there, and it is very realistic to those of us who 

have to deal with it.

Senator Sasser. Thank you.

Admiral Kamm. The Selected Naval Reserve has a requirement 

for 100,000 people; however, only 87,000 are funded at the present 

time, and all are in the category of early deployment units. This is 

based on the first 30-day needs under the various scenarios tha t 

have been prescribed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and 

most of our units would actually deploy anywhere from 72 hours to 

2 weeks. I would suggest to you, sir, that all of our projects are 

related to early deployment in that respect.

Senator Sasser. What is the readiness category of the Naval Air 

Station in Tennessee, do you have tha t information available 

today?

Admiral Kamm. They fit under this category.

It is in transition phase right now, having had P-3A airc raft for 

about 6 months. The Marine A-4 squadron is also required in the 

first 30 days.

Senator Sasser. Gentlemen, perhaps all of you would wish to 

elaborate on th e record, on the specific questions that I have asked, 

and supply some additional specifics that might be helpful to us.

NA VA L AIR STATION, MEMPHIS, TEN N.

While I am on the subject of naval air stations, Admiral Kamm, 

which is a subject that is nea r and dear to my heart, I would like 

to ask you about the Millington facility which is presently the 

home of two naval air squadrons. Would you tell us what squadrons are located at the facility in Millington, and what basically is 

the mission of these air squadrons?

Admiral Kamm. There are two naval air reserve squadrons. One 

is a VR tra nsport squadron flying the C-118 aircraft, and the other 

is a nine plane P-3 squadron, which is a maritime air patrol, antisubmarine warfare squadron.

In addition to that, there is a Marine Corps Air Reserve Unit 

which has an attack squadron made up of A-4E, jet aircraft. In 

addition to the Naval and Marine Corps Air Units there are several other Reserve units onboard, and I will provide a list for the 

record.

[The information follows:]

The Naval and Marine Corps Reserve units tha t utilize NAS Memphis are listed 

below along with their authorized and on-board strengths and aircraft assignments: 

NAVA L RESERV E UNITS

Authorized Onboard Aircraft

VR (Tran spor t Squadro n) 5 3 .............................

VP (Pa trol Squadron) 6 7 ....... . ........................

NR Ba sic Training Unit M l ...............................

NR Volunteer Train ing Unit Intelligence 123...........

NR Volunteer Train ing Unit 7 9 79........................

NR Record s Review NAS Memphis. .....................

NR VP (Pa trol Squa dron) 47 48 .........................

NR Firs t EURLAN T 1 3 79................ ..................

150 123 3C 118 B

34 3 246 9P3 A

0 16 .........................

0 0 .. ................

0 0 ....................... .

0 0 .........................

175 101 ......... .............

51 46 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
268

NAVAL RES ERV E UNITS— Continued

Authwized Onboard Aircraft

NR Advanced Base Functional Component H9 A. .....

NR Naval Invest igative Serv ice Office 17 79 ...........

NR NAF Misawa 07 79 .....................................

NR Mobilization Basic Control Group 79 79 ............

85 66 ......................

12 8 .........................

114 103 ......................

0 0 .........................

MARINE CO RPS RESERV E UNIT S

Authorized Onboard Aircraft

VMA (Att ack Squadron) 12 4. ...................

MABS (Air Base Squadron) 41 ..................

DET MATCU (Air Traffic Control U n it ). ........

DET HMS (HQ and Maintenance Support) 42. 

Staff Group. .........................................

140 120 12A4E

96 72 1TA4J

32 14 ......................

40 26 ......................

33 20 ......................

Senator Sasser. Would you provide, for the record, the number 

of Reserve aircraft tha t fly into this facility on a yearly basis?

[The information follows:]

Except for the assigned Naval and Marine Corps Reserve aircra ft consisting of 

twelve A4E, nine P3A, three C118B and one TA4J aircraft; the Navy does not 

distinguish between Active and Reserve aircraft operation s at NAS Memphis. All 

othe r operations are considered to be made by station or tra nsien t aircraft. Approximately 700 station and transien t air cra ft are accommodated ann ually at NAS 

Memphis.

Senator Sasser. Let me say that it is my understanding that the 

reserve units utilize the runway there only twice a month. You 

might care to comment on that now, and perhaps supply figures 

later for the record.

Admiral Kamm. Do you want that for all aircraft, or jus t reserves?

Senator Sasser. You might break that out by squadrons tha t 

operate there, and then transient.

Admiral Kamm. Yes, sir, we can provide tha t.

[The information follows:]

Aircraft operation s at NAS Memphis occur seven days per week. Assigned Naval 

and Marine Corps Reserve aircra ft make an average of 180 take-offs and 180 

landings per week at NAS Memphis. Transient air cra ft operations include approximately 116 take-offs and 116 landings per week.

Senator Sasser. Last year, the Navy indicated that the flight 

support facility at Millington should be upgraded in order to continue air operations of th e base. We were told that over the long 

term $28 million in military construction funds would be needed to 

prevent the Reserve squadrons from being moved to another location.

I had thought that tha t figure of $28 million was a little high, so 

I asked the Navy to visit the Millington to assess th e urgent needs 

of the facility. We have received a prelim inary report, which indi-
269

cates that the Navy will be able to scale down the amount of 

funding, which will be needed to meet the most urgent needs.

It appears, for instance, that the runway at Millington is not as 

damaged as earlier thought. I toured tha t runway with one of the 

Assistant Secretaries a few weeks ago. Would you give us an updated report on the situation at Millington with respect to the 

runway?

Admiral Kamm. Yes, Senator, As you are aware, the Director of 

the Shore Facilities Programing Division of the Office of the CNO 

in Washington was asked to make a physical inspection of the 

facilities and I believe he completed his inspection on the 13th of 

this month.

He is presently analyzing the data obtained durin g the visit and 

our CNO has asked for a report by the first of April as to the 

results, and in p artic ular to reassess the needs.

Senator Sasser. Could you advise the committee, Admiral, as 

soon as tha t data is available?

Admiral Kamm. Yes, sir, we will ask the CNO’s staff to get in 

touch with you.

[The information follows:]

Air Operations at NAS Memphis

On April 3, 1979, the Secretary of th e Navy announced tha t air operations will 

continue at NAS Memphis. This decision was based upon the results of the study, 

which reevaluated the requirements necessary to support air operations there. 

Projects were validated and listed in two categories. The list of projects required in 

the next three to five years totalled approximately $13 million, and those beyond 

tha t timeframe totalled approximately $5.5 million. It is my understanding that 

these projects will be scheduled for accomplishment consistent with their relative 

priority Navywide and limits imposed by available funding. It is not likely that any 

projects will be funded prior to fiscal year 1982. Many of the projects involved are 

under the sponsorship of the Chief of Naval Education and Training and would 

therefore be addressed in the Regular Navy’s Military Construction program. Projects that are under the sponsorship of the Chief of Naval Reserve and would be 

included in the Military Construction Naval Reserve program are: Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at $4.43 million, Administration and Technical Training Building at 

$2.14 million, a Jet Engine Test Cell at $1.23 million and an Aircraft Rinse Facility 

at $0.5 million.

Senator Sasser. As you stated earlier, the marines also have a 

squadron at Millington, and I was told that the Marine Reserve is 

fully satisfied with the base, and really do not want to leave. We 

will try to make the Navy happy also.

Still on the subject of Millington, I understand that one-third of 

the reserve squadrons there are called in for drill from outside of 

the Memphis area. This is at Navy expense. Two-thirds of the 

members are from th e Memphis area. So if these reserve squadrons 

are moved out of Millington Naval Air Station, there would be a 

substantial increase in transporting the Memphis area reserves to 

any alternative location.

I think the Navy has discussed, a t one point, perhaps moving the 

reserve squadrons. This would be a matter of concern to me. One 

concern is the cost of tran sporting the Memphis Reserves to another location to train.

I serve on the Legislative Appropriations Subcommittee, and we 

have developed testimony that indicated that $7.9 billion is consumed per year in transporting Government personnel and materi41-6 38 0 - 7 9 - 1 8
270

al. I introduced some legislation to cutback Government travel by 

$500 million, which is about 5 percent.

If these air squadrons were moved out, there would be a substantial increase in the cost of transporting those reservists to a new 

location for Reserve training.

Admiral Kamm. May I comment on a couple of numbers tha t 

have been stated here. We have made a recent survey of our people 

involved with the Air Reserve Units, not counting the people in the 

nonflying units, and approximately 50 percent of them are actually 

from the local area. We found that 23 percent are being airlifted 

from other places, and 27 percent are from outside the 100-mile 

radius, which is the normal commuting radius.

So within that context, although we still happen to have half the 

people from the Memphis area, the other half come from outside 

the radius. This is not to say that your remarks with respect to the 

costs will be ignored.

This does not necessarily indicate that we want to move out of 

Millington: If we had our choice, we would remain at many locations such as Memphis where we have grassroots support, but lacks 

the funds to solve the problems or to operate with small drill 

strengths. But in this regard, the Navy has some very serious 

problems which constrain our programs and lead to considerations 

driven by economics and payback opportunities.

Senator Sasser. I can assure you that I will be of all possible 

assistance.

TENNESSEE PROJECTS

Gentlemen, if I could just hold you for one more question about 

ongoing work in the State of Tennessee. As I unde rstand it, the 

Army has $1.5 million worth of work in Tennessee, $240,000 at 

Milan Arsenal at Milan, Tenn.; $810,000 a t the munition plan t in 

Chattanooga. The Navy has $1.4 million at Millington Naval Air 

Station for new steam systems.

Admiral Kamm. We do not have any Naval Reserve construction 

projects at Millington, tha t is a regular Navy project.

Senator Sasser. So the only thing the Naval Reserve has is a 

new training c enter a t Knoxville for $2,050,000?

Admiral Kamm. T hat is right.

Senator Sasser. The Air National Guard has $990,000 at Memphis International Airport.

General Conaway. T hat is correct.

Senator Sasser. Then, of course, we have Fort Campbell, Ky., 

budgeted at $17,210,000.

Gentlemen, for the purpose of the record, I would appreciate any 

amplification you might wish to make, or could make with regard 

to Tennessee projects.

General Weber. The $1.5 million that we have ongoing now in 

1979, are Chattanooga, an armory addition in Kingsport, a reserve 

center, an OMS, and in Greenville 150-person armory.

We have eight projects that are in the overprogram group tha t 

are on the list t ha t General Greenlief provided for you.

General Mohr. On the Army side, sir, we do have at Kingsport a 

400-member Armed Force Reserve center, for which bids have been
271

opened, and the amount is $1,125,000. This is ready for immediate 

award, but we do have a deficiency reprograming request pending 

at this particular point.

We have unprogramed requirements for construction in your 

State, projects ranging from $409,000 up to $2.5 million for a requirement in Nashville. We have these requirements at Nashville, 

Chattanooga, Knoxville, Greenville, Jackson, Memphis, and Oakridge. These are unprogramed requirements tha t we cannot at this 

time accommodate within the constraints of the budget.

Admiral Kamm. At Knoxville, we are replacing an inadequate 

and inefficient facility that is currently used for training and administration of reserves in that area. This project is $2,050,000. The 

old structure, which is to be done away with was constructed in 

1949.

In addition, space will be included for the Coast Guard Reserve. 

We have 118 percent of our authorized allowance on board at the 

present time between the Navy and the Marine Corps Reserve.

General McAdoo. We have no projects in the State of Tennessee. 

With the Air Force Reserve, like the Air National Guard, we are 

capable of a 24-hour mobilization time, and a 72-hour deployment 

time.

Then prioritizing our listing of projects and or funding, those 

projects tha t we deem as absolutely essential for meeting those 

requirements are funded. In our unfunded list of projects, there are 

some projects that we think certainly would assist us in meeting 

this commitment.

We will furnish you a list of those projects unfunded that we 

think would help us considerably.

Senator Sasser. We will have additional questions, which we will 

submit to you, and ask for your usual prompt response for the 

record.

Let me say, again, how much we appreciate having General 

Wallace with us today. I thought that his testimony was very 

illuminating.

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for responses subsequent to the hearing:]

Budget Priorities

Question. It appears from your sta tem ent s th at a considerable priority was assigned to units which have early mobilization deployment. Does the fiscal yea r 1980 

requ est tak e care of all outs tanding deficiencies for units proposed for deployment 

within the firs t 30 days of a conflict? If not, where are the major shor tfalls? 

ARMY RES ERV E

Answer. The fiscal yea r 1980 M ilitary Construction Army Reserve Approp riation 

does not tak e care of all outstan ding deficiencies for facilities used by u nits proposed 

for deployment within the firs t 30 days. Major shortfalls still exist in our field 

training sites, storage capability and ade qua te reserve centers for high priority 

units. Field tra ini ng sites, of course, provide facilities which support all reserve 

units by providing the traini ng to insu re a ready force. Two such projects will be 

ready for construction in fiscal yea r 1980. One is a weekend traini ng site at Joli et, 

Ill. for unit oriented training of approxim ately 16,000 Reserve component members 

within the Chicago metropo litan area. The other project is a t Fort Pickett, Va. This
m.

project will provide adequate adm inis trative and barrac ks and support buildings for 

approximately 11,000 U.S. Army Reservists and 32,000 Army National Guard troops 

who tr ain at Fort Pickett during the annual and weekend tra ini ng periods.

As a general rule, USAR units are authorize d equipment at 80 percent of what 

would be authorized if the units were mobilized. This equipment level will insure 

th at units are able to operate upon mobilization or enter advanced unit training 

without waiting for equipment deliveries. As addi tional equipment is issued to the 

units to meet authorizatio n levels, it must be stored and maintain ed. This capability 

is essential to insure the read iness of our units.

With regard to Reserve centers, it is estimated th at approxim ately $55 million of 

the MCAR backlog is in suppor t of ea rly deploying units. However, not all of these 

projects currently meet other constrainin g criter ia such as the availability of construction sites, the aggregate strength levels being in excess of 75 percent authorized or are affected in some way by o ther colocated units. In addition, these projects 

do not necessarily rep resent the most severe facility deficiencies nor are we assured 

th at early deploying requirements will remain as presently plann ed over the 5 to 6 

years planning-design and construction cycle to guara nte e th at once the facility is 

completed, it would support an early deploying requiremen t.

ARMY NAT IONAL GUA RD

The fiscal year 1980 requ est does not cover all outstanding deficiencies for units 

proposed for deployment within the first 30 days of a conflict. There is a shor tfall of 

20 projects, affecting 14 S tates, estim ated at a cost of $14.4. None of the projects in 

the fiscal year 1980 program involved new missions or mission changes.

AIR NAT IONAL GUA RD

It does not. All units of th e Air National Gua rd are subject to deployment within 

the first 30 days. Major shortfalls are those projects deleted from the budgeted fiscal 

yea r 1980 MCANG program:

Projects delete d fro m fis ca l yea r 1980 ANG MCP program

[Dollars in thousands]

Sta te/ ba se/pr oject Amount

Arizona: Tucson IAP: Composite squadron operatio ns/A cade mic training fac ility ..................................................................................................... $1,375

California:

Fresno IAP:

Support equipment sho p/s torage............................................................ 550

Relocate Ontario to M ar ch ...................................................................... 10,835

Connecticut: Bradley IAP: Composite squadron opera tions....................... 1,100

Indiana: Fort Wayne MAP: Squadron opera tions/teleco m........................ 1,300

Maryland: Glen L. Martin Aprt: Automotive mainte nan ce refueling

vehicle sh op .................................................................................................. 850

Massachusetts: Wellesley ANGS: Support equipm ent sho p....................... 450

Mississippi: Key Field: Base supply and equipment warehouse................ 1,145

Missouri: Lambert-St. Louis Aprt: Operatio nal tra ini ng f acility............... 2,500

New York:

Roslyn ANGS: Add/A lter vehicle ma inte nan ce shop.......................... 475

Westchester County Aprt: Add /Alter ma inte nan ce ha nga r............... 600

Ohio: Springfield MAP: Base engineer m aintenanc e facility.................... 450

Utah: Salt Lake City IAP: Add to base sup ply ............................................. 680

Washington: Paine Field: Communication—Electronic traini ng f acility.. 990

Various locations: Energy Conservation Modifications............................... 1,500

NAVY RESER VE

Mr. Chairman, by definition all of the Selected Naval Reserve units must be 

ready for deployment within the firs t 30 days of a mobilization. Therefore, the 

ent ire $199 million backlog would have to be elim inated to take care of all units 

proposed for deployment w ithin the first 30 days.

Major shortfalls occur at our Naval and Marine Corps Air Reserve sites where 

projects are urgently required to support the safe operation and mainte nan ce of our 

assigned aircra ft and the modern and effective traini ng of Air Reserve personnel 

and at our Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Centers to support modern and efficient trai nin g of the surface and groun d Reserve personnel. Of special concern is 

the repla cement of deterio rate d and inad equate facilities, which detra ct from the
m

ability of the individual Reservist to perform his mission and result in a degradation 

of his satisfaction and morale. I place par ticula r emph asis on the modernization of 

existing living facilities to conform to present criter ia and the construction of new 

unaccompanied personnel housing where shortfa lls exist to meet the needs of our 

Reservists and also the active duty personnel who support trai ning. These deficiencies greatly und erm ine the image of th e Naval and Marine Corps in their neighboring comm unities and are s ubstantial det rim ent s to the rete ntio n and rec ruitment of 

qualified personnel to meet mobilization requirem ents.

AIR FORCE RESERVE $I30Answer: Air Force Reserve units have the capability for mobilization the first 24 

hours and deployment within 72 houqs. The fiscal year 1980 program request does not provide for all 

facilities we deem necessary to support these early deployment units during this par ticula r time period.

There are four projects which were deleted from the originally subm itted fiscal 

yea r 1980 Reserve program due to funding restrictions tha t, I feel, are required to 

support our deployable units. They are:

(a) Aerial Port Trainin g Facility, Pope AFB, NC, $400,000.

(b) Civil Engineering Training Facility, Bark sdale AFB, LA, $625,000.

(c) Alter J et Fuel Storage Facility, Minn-St. Paul IAP, MN, $375,000.

(d) Weapons and Release Systems Shop, Elgin AFB, FL, $375,000. In addition, if 

approval is granted to sub stitute the two New Orle ans projects into the proposed 

fiscal yea r 1980 program, the project th at was deleted must also be considered a 

necessary support item for a deployable unit. This project is a Rocket Checkout and 

Assembly Building, New Orleans NAS, LA, $1 million.

Mission Changes

Question. Emphasis also seems to be given to units with new missions or mission 

changes. Would you indicate, for the record if necessary, th at portion of your 

requests associated with such changes —and wh at those changes are?

ARMY RESERVE

Answer. None of the fiscal yea r 1980 construction projects have been included in 

the budget requ est as the result of new missions or mission changes.

NAVY RESERVE

The projects contained in the fiscal yea r 1980 program are for the upgrading of 

substanda rd facilities and do not result from new missions or mission changes. 

AIR FORCE RESERVE

As m entioned in my statem ent, the projects at Homestead AFB, FL a re in support 

of an air cra ft conversion, i.e., 18 F-4C air cra ft in lieu of th e EC-121T airb orn e early 

warning and control mission. At Elgin AFB, FL, the mission enh ancem ent for the 

existing AC-130 gunships provides the need for the projects being presented for 

approval.

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Emphasis is definitely given to mission changes, that is, conversions, relocations, 

and other types of changes. The fiscal yea r 1980 MCANG projects and associated 

changes are included on the following list. The projects deleted from fiscal yea r 1980 

MCANG with their associated mission changes are included immediately after.
274

CONVERSIO N REL ATE D PRO JEC TS, FI SC AL YEAR 198 0 MCANG 

[Do llar s in thou sand s]

State and installation and project Conve rsion _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Progra med amount

INS IDE THE UNITED STA TES

Distr ict of Columbia: Andrew s AF B— weapons and release F - 105 to higher performance fight er ai rc ra ft .... 

systems shop.

Chica go-O'Hare IAP — fuel system s maintenance d o c k .... KC-9 7 to K C -1 3 5 ..........................................

Greater Peoria Airport— engine inspection and repair 02 to high er performance recon naissance airmaintenance control. craft.

Kansas :

McConnell AF B— engin e inspection and repair s h o p ...... F-1 0 5 to F - 4 ..................................................

Add to avio nics for weapons release s h o p ............................................................................................

Louisiana: New Orleans NAS — fuel systems maintenance dock.. F -1 0 0 to F - 4 ................................................

M a r y lGtenn L. Martin Airp ort— fuel systems mainte- A -3 7 to highe r performance fighter ai rc ra ft....

nance dock.

Munitions maintenance sto rage.............................................................................................................

Massa chuse tts: Bar nes MAP— munition maintenance fa cil ity. .. F -1 0 0 to A - 1 0 .............................................

North Carolina: Douglas MAP— aerial port trainin g facility ...... C -1 2 4 to C - 1 3 0 .............................................

Ohio: Springfield MAP — rocket chec kou t/as sem bly st or ag e..... F -1 0 0 to A - 7 ..............................................

Penn sylvan ia: Harrisbu rg IAP — engine inspection and repair F—121 to C -1 3 0 E ..........................................

shop.

Texas: Dal las NA S— aerial port train ing facility ...................... K C-9 7 to C - 1 3 0 ................. .... ... ...... ..... .... ...

Virgi nia: Byrd Field— add to avio nics sho p............................ F -1 0 5 to higher performance fighter airc ra ft...

OUT SIDE THE UNITED STA TES

Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico IAP — alter fuel syste ms mainten ance F-1 0 4 to A - 7 ..............................................

dock

$70 0

2,25 0

720

730

860

610

2,0 10

290

220

750

475

775

755

250

425

Total 12,620

Projects deleted from the fiscal 1980 AN G MCP basic program related to

conversions, relocations, and mission changes

[Dollars in thousands]

State/base/project

Arizona: Tucson IAP: Composite squadron operatio ns/A cade mic trai ning facility (F-1OO—A-7)................................... ..........................................

California: Relocation Ontario to Marc h (relocation)....................... ...........

Connecticut: Bradley IAP: Composite squad ron operations (relocation)...

District of Columbia: Andrew s AFB: ANG Support cen ter (relocation )....

Indiana: Fort Wayne MAP: Squadron operations/Telecomm (F-100 to

Amount

$1,375

10,835

1,100

F-4 )................................................................................................................. 1.300

Maryland: Glenn L. Martin Aprt: Autom otive mainte nan ce refueling_________

cra ft)................................................................................................................ 850

Massachusetts: Wellesley ANGS: Support equipm ent shop (equipmen t

increase).......................................................................................................... 450

Missouri: Lambert-St. Louis Aprt: Ope rational tra ining facility (F-1OO

to F-4C, and replace men t due to fire loss )............................................... 2,500

New York:

Roslyn ANGS: Ad d/A lter vehicle mainte nan ce shop (equipment in- _ 

cre ase )................. ...................................... ............................................... 475

Westchester County Aprt: Add/Alter ma inte nan ce han gar (O-2A to

high er performance reconnaissance ai rc ra ft)...... .................. ............ 600

Washington: Paine Field: Com munications/electronic traini ng FaciliFy

(equipment increase).................................................................................... 990

Adequacy of the Budget

Question. It is obvious from all of you r testimon y th at the fiscal yea r 1980 Budget 

will not permit reduction to the large and growing construction backlog. I’m not so 

sure th at last year’s level did either, for th at ma tter. What would each of you 

consider to be an app rop riate ann ual budget level th at would enab le accomplish-
2X5

ment of cu rre nt mission and a reasonably phased reduction of backlog? Would these 

levels be accomplishable in term s of the level of construction to be under tak en and, 

in the case of the Guard, in term s of State participation?

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Answer. The National Guard Bureau and the States have dem onstrated th at a 

$60.0 military construction program can be effectively managed, and this level of 

funding will slow the growth of our construction backlog, which presently consists of 

$672 million worth of validated projects. Both the Guard and the Sta te could 

accomplish the requ irem ents placed on them at this level of funding.

ARMY RESERVE

An app rop riate ann ual budget level th at would perm it accomplishme nt of the 

curre nt mission and a 15-year phased reduction of the backlog is $80 million in 

constan t fiscal yea r 1980 dollars. $62 million would provide the funding required to 

replace facilities which deterio rate or become obsolete ann ually as well as to provide 

for the mino r construction, planning and design programs. The balance or $18 

million would be devoted to the reduction of the backlog.

Since the cu rre nt MCAR design effort was programmed to support approximately 

$60 million in major and minor construction, we would be unable to execute an $80 

million program until fiscal yea r 1981. For fiscal year 1980 the Army Reserve could 

execute a $62 million program as follows (in th ousands of dollars):

Amou n

Major construction........................................................................................... 52,964

Minor con stru ctio n........................................................................................... 4,036

Plannin g............................................................................................................ 5,000

Tot al ........................................................................................................ 62,000

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

A. An app rop riate ann ual budget level which would enable accomplishme nt of 

curre nt mission and provide a reasonably phased reduction to the backlog would be 

$60.0 million.

B. These levels would be accomplishable in term s of co nstruction to be underta ken. In the case of the ANG the re is no sta te participation in accordance with Title 

10, United States Code, Ch apte r 133, Section 2233a(l).

NAVY RESERVE

The $15 Million in Military Construction Naval Reserve requested for fiscal year 

1980 will not reduce the $199 million backlog since inflation will exceed that 

amount. An ann ual budget level of $30 million would enable the Naval Reserve and 

Marine Corps Reserve to accomplish their cu rre nt missions and to eliminat e the 

backlog over a 10-year program. Considering fiscal con stra ints , this would be a 

reasonably phased program level. An ann ual budget level of $47.5 million would 

elim inate the backlog within a 5-year period.

AIR FORCE RESERVE

The Air Force Reserve construction backlog at this time is estimated at $153 

million. To achieve any realistic reduction, ann ual major construction mus t address 

at a minim um $17 million. Also, design funds must be ade quate to provide the 

advanced plan ning to insure projects are ready to obligate once funding is provided. 

I recommend an ann ual planning and design budget of at least $2.5 million to 

assure timely accom plishment of the progra m.

Naval Reserve

Question. As Gene ral Roberts noted in his statem ent, the Admin istratio n has 

atte mpted to sub stantia lly reduce the average drill stre ngth of the Navy Reserve. 

Admiral Kamm, what relation ship would such a reduction have on our facility 

requiremen ts if it were accomplished? Would we need to close any Reserve Centers? 

$I30Answer. A reduction of the Selected Naval Reserve Streng th of t his magnitude 

and the corresponding reductions in personnel to support the tra ining and funds for 

the operation of our Reserve Centers will drive an extensive review of our Naval 

Reserve Shore Establishm ent with an eye toward consolidations so th at we can 

continue traini ng within these constraints. At this time the re has been no decision 

as to how many or which Naval Reserve C ente rs will be disestablished as a result of 

this reduction. Preliminary analysis indicates th at Centers whose d rill strength falls 

below 150 to 200 will receive seriou s consideration for consolidation actions. Natu-
276

rally, the sta tus of the physical plant is an important factor when considering 

Centers for closure action, and it is reasonab le to predict th at the re would be a 

reduction in the $199 million backlog of require d construction due to the disestablishmen t of de teriorated Centers. It is not possible to predict the magnitude of tha t 

backlog reduction until the num ber and identity of the Centers to be closed is 

known.

Question. Does the intended reduction in drill strength affect the size of the fiscal 

yea r 1980 request?

Answer. No, sir. The projects included in the fiscal yea r 1980 program support 

requ irem ents that will cont inue at the Selected Naval Reserve level budgeted for 

fiscal y ear 1980.

Question. Has the Navy had a problem in achieving its previously assigned 

average drill streng th targ ets?

Answer. Yes, the Naval Reserve has had a problem in achieving assigned average 

drill pay strengt h targ ets. Some reasons for this problem are:

Commencing with res tru ctu rin g in 1973, and continu ing thro ugh the present, 

the re has been con stant change and instab ility.

Budgets containin g large cuts in authorize d drill pay streng th, th at never ma terialized, caused many dedicated Reservists to “give up the ship.

Change from 2X6 Active Marine r Program to 3X6 Program was major reason for 

not atta ining strengt h in fiscal year 1978.

Discontinuance of the draft —eliminated larg e portion of college type personnel 

from program and reduced pool of available personnel for recruitin g.

Additional Requirements

Question. While both General Roberts and Gen eral Gre enlief address addition al 

funding requ irem ents for fiscal year 1980, I would like to officially receive from 

each of you a list of projects—in priority order, which should be added to the 

budget, if authorized. As a practical matter, I believe th at amounts actually enacted 

in fiscal y ear 1979 should serve as the upper limit for these deficiency lists, but this 

is not necessarily a con stra int, if you believe addition al efforts merit specific consideration.

Answer: See ta ble below:

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

IDollare in thousands]

State, location, and project a*1

North Carolina: Morganton—Armed Forces Reserve C en ter.................... $294

Alabama:

Ozark—Organizational mainte nance shop............................................ 132

Arab—Orga nizationa l mainte nance sho p............................................. 188

Talladega—Orga nizational maintenance sh op ....................... ......... 211

Louisiana: Vidalia—Arm ory........................................................................... 489

Tennessee: Mila n—Unit tra ining equipm ent site /we ekend tra ini ng site. 1,078

South Carolina: West Columbia—Armory..................................................... 613

North Carolina:

Raleigh—Division logistics system ......................................................... 249

Raeford—Arm ory ..................................................................................... 406

Edenton—Ar mory.................................................................................... 347

Texas: San Antonio—Army aviation support f ac ility................................. 478

Louisiana: DeQuincy—Arm ory ....................................................................... 568

Iowa: Dubuque—Armory.................................................................................. 647

Rhode Island: North Kingston —

Army Aviation Support F acility ............................................................ 1,404

, Armory ad ditio n...................................................................................... 122

Florida: West Palm Beach—

Armed Forces Reserve C en te r............................................................... 738

Organizationa l ma intena nce shop......................................................... 159

Minnesota:

Owatonna Arm ory.................................................................................. 528

St. Peter Armo ry.................................................................................... 475

North Dakota: Devils Lake—U nit trainin g equipment sit e........................ 1,392

Ohio: New Phila delphia—Ar mory................................................................. 555

Oklahom a: Stillwater—Arm ory...................................................................... 561

Utah :

Camp Williams—Organizational mainte nance sh op .......................... 291
T il

Mount P lea san t—Armory........................................................................ 590

Vermont: Eth an Allen Range—Disp ensary................................................. 146

Wyoming: _ _____________

Cheyenne—Arm y aviation support facility ........................................... 458

Gillette—A rmory ...................................................................................... 518

Louisiana: Oakgrove—Arm ory....................................................................... 547

Alabama: Fort McClellan—Train ing f acility................................................ 1,997

Kentucky: Williamsburg—Arm ory................................................................ 462

Vermont: Camp Joh nso n—U.S. property and fiscal office ad dition .......... 107

Tennessee:

Catoosa—Ran ge ........................................................................................ 400

Memphis—Arm ory ................................................................................... 1,048

Memphis—Organizationa l maintenance sh op ...................................J 162

Minnesota: Camp Ripley—Combined support mainte nan ce shop.............. 521

California: Camp Roberts—Training facilities.............................................. 1,000

Michigan:

Big Rapid—Armo ry.................................................................................. 641

Camp Grayling—Logistic support facil ity ............................................. 1,551

Missouri: Jefferson City—Army aviation support facility .......................... 1,500

Virginia: Sta unton —Organizational mainte nance shop............................ 184

Tennessee:

Ripley—Arm ory ........................................................................................ 599

Rockwood—Armory.................................................................................. 232

New York:

Ronkonkoma—

Army aviatio n suppor t facility................................................................ 710

Armory........................................................................................................ 159

Orga nizational mainte nan ce sho p........................................................... 201

Virgin Islands: St. Thom as—Arm ory .............................. 468

North Carolina: Albermarle—Arm ory .......................................................... 329

Michigan: Saginaw—Arm ory .......................................................................... 584

California: Long Beach—Combined support ma intena nce shop................. 234

Alabama: Fort McClellan—Unit traini ng eq uipmen t s ite addition ........... 166

Pennsylva nia: Fort Indiantown Gap—Aviation com ple x........................... 1,235

Virgin Islands: St. Croix—Arm ory................................................................. 676

Mississippi: Monticello—Division logistics s yst em ....................................... 132

New York: Fort Dru m—Trainin g fac iliti es................................................... 2,381

Connecticut: New Britain—Arm ory............................................................... 763

Oregon: Ashland —Arm ory .............................................................................. 617

Alabama: Hun tsville—Armory a dditio n........................................................ 320

Massachusetts: Camp E dwards—

Trainin g facilities............................................................................................. 262

Unit traini ng equipmen t s it e.......................................................................... 182

Michigan: Camp Graylin g—Ammunition facility........................................ 1,501

Tennessee: Smyrna—Arm ory.......................................................................... 458

New York: West Che ster—

Armory............................................................................................................... 1,095

Orga nizationa l mainte nan ce shop.................................................................. 293

Nevada: Carson City—Organizational ma inte nan ce sho p.......................... 174

Total major c onstructio n...................................................................... 37,528

Minor construction*.......................................................................................... 2,472

Tot al ........................................................................................................ 40,000

1

 The minor construction funds are to support the Energy Conservation Investment Program 

(ECIP). The $2.9 million in the program for minor construction is totally inadequate to support 

projects and ECIP. It is estimated the total ECIP requirement will be approximately $30 million.

ARMY RESERV E

The following is a listing of projects in priority sequence th at could be executed in 

fiscal yea r 1980 and should be added to t he budget:
278

[In thousands of dollars]

State/lnstallation/Pro)ect

1. Ft Totten, NY: New 2400-member USARC with

Maint & Storage Facilities. ...........................

2. Ft Pickett, VA: Annual Training Facilities. .........

3. Tooele Ammunition Depot, UT New 250-member

Dining Facility. .........................................

4. Morganton, NC: Expand to 150-member USARC

(Jt w /N G B ). ...........................................

5. Houston, TX: New 1200-member USARC with

Maintenance Facilitie s. ................................

6. Ft Riley, KS: Maintenance Facilities (Jt w /N G B ).

7. St. Petersburg, FL Expand to 600-member

USARC with Maintenance Facilities. ................

8. Sandusky, OH: Expand to 60-member USARC

with Maintenance Facilities. .........................

9. Bismarck, ND-. Expand to 200-member USARC

with Maintenance Facilities. .........................

10. Joliet, IL: Weekend Training Site Ranges.........

11. Weirton, WV: Expand to 100-member USARC

with Maintenance Facilities..........................

12. Knox Field, AL: Expand to 400-member USARC

with Flight & Maintenance Facilities. ..............

13. Pasadena, TX: Expand to 300-member USARC

with Maintenance Facilities..........................

Current working estimate

Project Cumulative

Ready to 

Advertise

9,918 9,918 Oct 79

8,375 18,293 Apr 79

435 18,728 Apr 79

195 18,923 Aug 79

3,985 22,908 Mar 80

1,217 24,125 Apr 79

1,226 25,351 Apr 79

1,147 26,498 Apr 79

1,134 27,632 Apr 79

1,025 28,657 Dec 79

930 29,587 Jun 79

2,473 32,060 Feb 80

1,080 33,140 Aug 79

N A V Y R E S E R V E

The following are our highest prio rity projects. It should be noted th at planning 

and design funds in the a mount of 6 percent of the tota l cost of th e projects selected 

should be added.

[Dollar amounts in thousands]

Project description/location

Estimated cost

Project Cumulative Priority

Hangar Rehab, NAS So. Weymouth, MA ........... $1,430 $1,430 1

Flight Clearance Easement/Land Easement, NAS

Willow Grove, PA. ..................................... 1,100 2,530 2

Fire Station Addn, NAS New Orleans, LA ............. 560 3,090 3

Parking Apron Addn, NAS Glenview, IL ................ 850 3,940 4

Administrative Bldg, NAS Atlanta, GA ................. 920 4,860 5

Reserve Training Bldg, Cincinnati, OH ................. 1,680 6,540 6

Reserve Training Bldg, San Diego, CA................. 4,700 11,240 7

Reserve Training Bldg, Houston, TX................... 2,850 14,090 8

Reserve Training Bldg, Tucson, AZ ..................... 2,600 16,690 9

P -3 Maintenance Trainer Facility, NAS Willow

Grove, PA.. ............................................. 1,425 18,115 10

Rinse Facility, NARU Point Mugu, CA................. 280 18,395 11

Rinse Facility, NAS So. Weymouth, MA. .. 510 18,905 12

Rinse Facility, NARU Alameda, CA...................... 450 19,355 13

Eng/MT Site, MARTU Fresno, CA....................... 350 19,705 14

Vehicle Maint Shop, NMCRC Saint Louis, MO .... 150 19,855 15

There are four additional projects, an Aircraft Mainte nance Hanga r at $4.43 

million, a Training and Adm inistration Building at $2.1 million, a rinse facility at 

$0.5 million, and a Je t Engine Test Cell at $1.23 million at th e Naval Air Station
279

Memphis. However, it is not considered pru den t to fund for these projects until the 

runw ay at NAS Memphis, which is a facility belonging to the Regular Navy, has 

been upgraded to support assigned airc raft. It is my und erstanding th at the required runway repair would cost approximately $3.3 million.

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

The following prioritized list includes all high prio rity additional funding require ­

men ts for fiscal yea r 1980.

Prioritized additional funding requirements

[Dollars in thousands]

Sta te/City/Base Project Title Est im at e cost

California/O ntario IAP to March AFB Relocation 1

................................... $10,835

Mic higan/Mt Clemens/Selfrige AGB: Avionics/Weapons Release Shop... 825

Massachusetts/W estfield /Barnes MAP: Avionics/Weapons Release

Shop ................................................................................................................ 1,245

Geo rgia /Ma rietta/D obbins AFB:

Rocket Storage /Checkout/Assemb ly...................................................... 835

Avionics/Weapons Release Sh op............................................................ 735

Wa shington /Se attle/Seattle AGS:

Reserve Forces Comm unications—Electronic T rainin g Fa cil ity ........ 1,000

Auto Mainte nan ce/Suppo rt Equipme nt Shop....................................... 600

Base Supply and Equipment Ware house ............................................... 200

Site Pre paratio n, Roads, P arking, Utiliti es ........................................... 500

Wisconsin/Milwaukee /Gen eral Mitchell Field: Base Engineer Maintenance Fac ility................................................................................................ 525

Utah /Salt Lake City/S alt Lake City IAP: Reserve Forces Communications-Electronics Trainin g Fac ility ............................................................. 1,445

Hawaii/H ilo/Keau kaha Military Reservation:

Reserve Forces Communications-Electronics Tra inin g Fa cility......... 1,375

Auto Ma intena nce /Su ppo rt Equipme nt Shop....................................... 1,030

Michigan/Mt Cleme ns/Selfridge AGB: Squadron Operatio ns Fac ility..... 1,260

Mas sachusetts/Worcester/W orceste r AGS: Support Equipme nt Shop

(Add /Alter)..................................................................................................... 570

Ind ian a/T err e Ha ute /Hulm an Field: Add/A lter Weapons Release Systems Shop...................................................................................................... 890

India na /Ft Wayne/ Ft Wayne MAP: Squadron Oper ation /Telecom munications Center................................................................................................ 1,300

Ma ryland /Ba ltim ore/Glen L. Martin Sta te Airport: Aircraft Engine 

Inspection and Repair S hop......................................................................... 1,050

Tennesse/Knoxville/McGhee-Tyson Aprt: Mainte nance Co ntrol............... 515

North Dakota/F arg o/H ect or Field: Fuel System Mainten ance Dock....... 805

Massac husetts/Westfield /Barnes MAP: Fuel System Maintenanc e Dock 920

Ohio/Sp ringfield/Springfield MAP: Fuel System Maintenanc e Doc k...... 960

Maryla nd/Baltim ore/Glen. L. Martin Sta te Airport: Auto Maintenanc e/Refuel Vehicle S ho p......................................................................... 850

Missouri/St Louis/La mbert-St Louis Aprt: Reserve Forces Operations 

and Tra inin g Facility................................................................................... 2,500

Illinois/Springfield/Capital MAP: Add to Je t Fuel St orag e...................... 235

Massachusetts/W estfield /Barnes MAP: Squadron Operatio ns Fa cil ity .... 640

Connecticut/Windsor Locks/Bradley Field; Composite Squadron Operations.............................................................................................................. 1,100

Arizona/Tucson IAP: Composite Squadron Operatio ns/Academic Tra ining Fac ility..................................................................................................... 1,375

Missouri/St Joseph/Rosecrans Memorial Aprt: Aerial Port Trainin g 

Fac ility ........................................................................................................... 770

California/Mounta in View/Moffett NAS: A dd/Alter Parachute/D inghy 

Shop................................................................................................................ 600

Ariz ona/Phoenix/S ky Harbor IAP: Convert Dock to Fuel Systems 

Maintenance Dock........................................................................................ 360

Mississippi/M eridian/Key Field: Base Supply and Equipme nt Warehouse.............................................................................................................. 1,145

New York/R oslyn /Roslyn AGS: Add/A lter Vehicle Mainte nance Shop... 475

Washin gto n/E ver ett/Pa ine Field: Reserve Forces Communications-Electronics Tra inin g Facil ity .............................................................................. 990
280

Ca lifornia /Fresno/Fresn o IAP: Support Equ ipment Sh op /Storag e.......... 550

Utah/Salt Lake City/S alt Lake City IAP: Add to Base Supply................ 680

New Mexico/Alb uquerque/Kirtlan d AFB (ANG): Composite Maintenance F aci lity ................................................................................................ 1,030

Texas/H ouston/E llington AFB (ANG): Alter Bldgs 1290 & 1287 for

Auto Maintenance/R efue l Vehicle Shop/PO L Operation s..................... 515

Ohio/Springfield/Springfield MAP: Base Eng ineer Mainte nance FaciliMassachusetts/Wellesley/Wellesley AGS: Support Equipment Shop ....... 450

Mich igan/Mt Clemens/Selfridge AGB: Base Supply and Equipme nt

Warehouse...................................................................................................... 2,500

Rhode Island /Pro vidence/Quonset Sta te Aprt: Je t Fuel Stora ge............. 900

District of Columbia/Andrews AFB: Air National Guard Support

Ce nter............................................... ...................... ..................................... 3,000

Various Locations: Energy Conservation Modification............................... 1,500

1

 See attached page for P roject List.

Project list to support item No. 1

California/Ontario IAP to March AFB Relocation:

Maintenance Administration, General Purpose Shops (Joint Use),

Avionics/Weapons Release Sh op ......................................................... 3,135

Alter Hanga r for AFRES................... 540

Munitions Mainten ance/Stora ge Facil ity .............................................. 640

Aircraft Arresting Sy ste m....................................................................... 250

Power Check Pad and Suppressor/Engine Test Sh op ......................... 350

Composite Squadron Operation s............................................................. 1,340

Reserve Forces O perations and Tra inin g Fac ility................................ 1,600

Fuel System Maintence Dock.................................................................. 1,100

Auto Mainten ance Shop.......................................................................... 680

Base Supply and Equipme nt Ware house .............................................. 1,200

Tot al ....................................................................................................... 10,835
281

AIR FORCE RESERVE

The following priority listing of additional funding requirements for fiscal yea r 

1980 includes 12 projects for a total of $5,355,000.

Project, title , an d location: Coat

Fuel System Maintenance Dock: Kelly AFB, TX......................................... $830

Convert to Veh Maint Shop: Westover AFB, MA........................................ 770

Instrum ent Landing System: Westover AFB, MA ....................................... 250

Aerial Port Trainin g Fac: Pope AFB, NC..................................................... 400

Alter Base Supply Admin: Gen B. Mitchell Fid, W I................................... 160

Fire Station: Niagara Falls IAP, NY............................................................. 810

Civil Engrg Tng Facility: Bark sdale AFB, LA.............................................. 265

ECM Pod Sh op :1

 New O rlea ns NAS, LA...................................................... 625

Alter Je t Fuel Storage: Minn-St Paul IAP, MN........................................... 315

Fuel Cell Mainten ance Dock: 1

 New Orleans, NAS, L A............................. 375

Weapons & Release Systems Shop: Eglin AFB, F L..................................... 375

POL Operations: Nia gara Falls IAP, N Y ..................................................... 180

Tot al ....................................................................................................... 5,355

* To be replaced by the Rocket Checkout and Assembly Building, shown in the fiscal y ear 1980 

Air Force Reserve Military Construction Prog ram request.

SU BC OM MITTEE RECESS

Gentlemen, we will recess until 2 p.m., tomorrow afternoon, 

when the committee will consider fiscal year 1980 requests for 

strategic systems.

The committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., Wednesday, March 21, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Thursday, March 22.]

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1979

U.S. Senate,

Subcom mittee of the Committee on Appr opr iat ion s,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 2:20 p.m., in room 1223, Everett McKinley Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Walter D. Huddleston (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Huddleston and Sasser.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Depa rtm ent of the Navy

Strategic Systems

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. D. G. ISEL IN, CEC, U.S. NAVY, COMMANDER, NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND

ACCOMPANIED BY:

REAR ADM. D. P. HALL, PROJECT MANAGER, TRIDENT SYSTEM

PROJECT OFFICE

CMDR. D. E. WHEELER, CEC, USN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PROGRAM

OPERATIONS, ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF DEF ENS E

SUBCOMM ITTEE PROCEDURE

Senator Huddleston. The subcommittee will come to order.

The hearings this afternoon concern strategic systems. By “stra ­

tegic systems,” I am referring to land- and sea-based ballistic and 

cruise missiles and the ir support systems. Specifically, this entails 

the Navy’s Trid ent and Poseidon programs and the Air Force’s MX and cruise missile efforts.

These systems are the subject of a separate hearing this year 

because developments are underway which could result in extrem ely large construction expenditures. A firm understanding of the 

stat us and direction of these programs will form the basis for 

evaluation of specific construction needs.

Our witnesses today include Rear Adm. D. G. Iselin, Commander 

of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and Col. Richard H. 

Hinz, from the Air Force Directorate of Engineering and Services.

Considering our subject matter, we will have to go into executive 

session at some point. To keep the hearing open as much as possible, however, I believe we should sta rt with Navy testim ony on th e 

(283)
284

ongoing Poseidon and Trident programs, and go into closed session 

immediately afte r th e Air Force’s unclassified presentation.

TRIDENT MILIT ARY CONSTRUC TION

Admiral Iselin, you may proceed.

Admiral Iselin. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to 

appear before you to address the military construction requirements for fiscal year 1980 in support of the Trident weapons 

system.

Under the Tr ident military construction program, we are, as you 

know, developing a new base at Bangor, Wash., to support the first 

10 Trident submarines.

Other construction provides:

Missile flight test facilities at Cape Canaveral, Fla. These facilities successfully supported the Trid ent missile experimental pad 

launch series, which have been completed.

Facilities at Cape Canaveral for the Trident system demonstration and shakedown operations.

We have built facilities at Point Mugu, Calif., for follow-on missile tes t firings from submarines.

And we have built some conventional ordnance facilities at 

Indian Island, Wash., to replace the capability that was displaced 

at Bangor by the Trident facilities.

As of October 1, 1979, $500 million of the $539 million appropriated for Trident facility construction will be obligated.

This year we are requesting $19.8 million for Trident. Items 

included are: utilities and site improvements, a helipad, and community impact assistance at Bangor, and dredging of the Thames 

River channel in Groton/New London, Conn., to permit safe tran sit 

of the Trident submarine while conducting sea trials.

A supplem ent to my s tatement provides additional details rela ting to the Trident military construction program.

SUP PLE MENTA L TRIDEN T INFO RMA TION

The Trident program, with your support, is proceeding on track 

toward the goal of our major new strategic force at sea in the early 

1980’s. The Trident military construction facilities are an essential 

part of th is program. We request the committee’s continuing support.

[The supplemental information follows:]
M l- 6 3 8 0 23 F eb 19 79 TRIDENT MILITARY CONSTRUCTION*

FY AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATED CURRENT WORKING ESTIMATE

19 74 1 1 8 .3 2 0 1 1 2 .3 2 0 1 1 5 .3 0 0

19 75 1 0 0 .0 0 0 1 0 0 .0 0 0 1 0 2 .1 0 0

19 76 1 8 6 .9 6 7 1 4 1 .9 6 7 1 7 1 .0 0 0

19 77 9 2 .2 7 8 1 2 9 .3 2 8 8 6 .7 0 0

19 78 1 0 6 .9 1 0 7 5 .5 5 7 8 2 .4 0 0

19 79 0 1 6 .2 5 5 1 6 .8 0 0

TOTALS 6 0 4 .4 7 5 5 7 5 .4 2 7 5 7 4 .3 0 0

♦ I n c l u d e s C om m unit y I m p a c t A s s i s t a n c e
PR OJ ECT

NUMBERS

005006

014016

018

741

742

743

744

TR IDE NT M IL IT AR Y CON STR UCT ION PROGRAM

---------- CURRENT WORKING ESTIMATES

------------------C T O F ]--------------------

AS OF 28 FEB 1979

FY -1 97 4

-------------- CURRENT

WORKING

BANGOR EST IMATE

U TIL 5 SIT E IMPROVEMENTS 2 6 ,0 4 4

TR IT RA FA C 1 0 ,8 9 5

R EF IT P IE R NO. 1 2 3 ,6 2 9

WAREHOUSE 4 2 6

EHW NO . 1 2 2 ,2 9 6

CAP E CANAVERAL

WHARF DREDGIN G

LAUNCH COMPLEX 25

M IS S IL E C/O BLDG S

g05

3 0 ,3 6 2

1 ,1 9 4

231231 GUI DAN CE/ TEL EME NTR Y BLDG

FY 1974 TOTAL 1 1 5 ,3 0 8
FY -1 97 5

CURRENT

PROJE CT WORKING

NUMBERS BANGOR ESTIMA TE

101 VERT ICA L M IS SI LE PACK BU ILD ING #2 5,5 56102 M IS SIL E AS SY CONT BLDG 889

104 INERT COMP PROC BLDG 3, 49 0

106 M IS SI LE PARTS WAREHOUSE 3,4 03

107 TECHNI CAL SE RV IC ES BLDG 2,0 80108 ENG INEE RING SERV BLDG 3,5 08110 LIM ITE D AREA GUARDHOUSE 4,0 50

113 SWS SUPP LY WAREHOUSE 3,2 83115 SWS MAINTENANCE SHOP 2,1 32

116 TRITRA FAC (2ND INC R) 24 ,5 12

118 BACHELOR EN LIS TE D QTRS 2,4 51

121 EN LIS TED DIN ING FA CI LI TY 3,1 95

122 UTI LS 5 SI TE IMPROVEMENTS 35 ,6 90

127 M IS SIL E ASSEM BLY BLDG #1 3,1 44
FY -1 975 (CON T)

PR OJ ECT

NUMBERS BANGOR

CURRENT 

WORKING 

EST IMATE .

128 WEAPONS QU AL IT Y EVA LUA TIO N CENTE R 1 ,3 8 7

226 USMC ADMIN 5 BER THIN G 2 ,6 5 0

311 FIR E STAT ION 5 30

COMMUNITY IMPA CT ASS IS TA NCE 102

FY 197 5 TOTAL 1 0 2 ,0 5 2

FY-1 97 6

103 NON-D EST RUC T TE ST 8 IN SP EC TI ON BU IL DI NG 1 ,9 3 8

105 TRA NSF ER F A C IL IT Y 39 2

114 DRYDOCK (PH I ) 2 5 ,8 0 4

205 EXP LO SI VES COMPONENTS CHECKOUT BU IL DI NG 466

206 RE -EN TR Y BODY BLDG #2 2 ,8 1 4

208 FLAMMABLE STOR AGE BLDG 186

209 MAIN TENA NCE SUP POR T BLDG 4 ,2 0 9
FY -197 6 (CONT)

CURRENT

PROJECT WORKING

NUMBERS BANGOR ESTIM ATE

211 EQUIPMENT MAINT BLDG 2,1 56

214 M IS SIL E MOTOR MAGS 2,6 52

215 SMALL ORDNANCE MAGS 336

232 POL TANK FARM 650

245 UTI LS 6 SI TE IMPROVEMENTS 36 ,9 53

247 M IS SI LE ASSEMBLY BLDG #2 3, 01 8

252 CONTROLLED IND USTRIAL FA CI LI TY 3, 60 4

253 BACHELOR EN LIS TE D QTRS 3, 83 1

255A ALARM CONTROL CENTER (1S T INCREMENT) 4 30

261 RE FI T IND USTRIAL FAC 18 ,9 79

266 DELTA SUPPORT FAC 4,3 85

309 DISP ENSA RY/DEN TAL C L IN IC 2, 82 6

SUBTOTAL 11 5, 62 9
F Y -1 9 7 6

(PRO JECT S REQU ESTE D/AP PR OP RIAT ED IN FY 1 9 7 7 )

PR OJECT

NUMBERS

CURRENT

WORKING

ESTIMATE

204 DOCKSIDE HANDLING BLDG 1 ,5 8 9

210 CONTAINER STORAGE AREA 1 ,1 2 5

256 COLD STORAGE FAC 56 6

257 SUBMART 58 2

27 0 VERTICA L M IS SIL E PKG BLDG #3 5 ,4 9 7

27 1 RADIO GRA PHIC IN SP EC TI ON BLDG 4 ,3 5 6

30 3 R EFIT PIE R NO. 2 1 2 ,5 2 6

31 3A UTI LS § S IT E IMPROVEMENTS 21

318 MAGNETIC SILE NC IN G FA CIL IT Y 7 ,8 8 2

360 FIR E STATION MODS 167

INDIAN ISLA ND

SUBTOTAL 3 4 ,3 1 1

268 AMMUNITION WHARF, I . I . 1 3 ,1 2 7
F Y -1 9 7 6 (CO NT)

CURRENT

PR OJECT

NUMBERS

WORKING

ESTIM ATE

CAPE CANAVERAL

76 1 DEMONSTRATION 8 SHAKEDOWN OP ER AT IONS BU ILDING 1 ,0 2 6

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASS ISTA NC E 7 ,0 0 0

228

FY 1 9 7 6 TOTAL

F Y -1 9 7 7

BANGOR

1 7 1 ,0 9 3

228 BACHELOR OFF IC ER S QTRS 2 ,5 7 6

234 SUBMARINE SUP PLY A SST. TEAM BU ILD ING 1 ,0 2 2

25 5B ALARM CONTROL CENT ER (2N D INC REM ENT ) 597

2 6 3 PU BL IC WORKS FAC 1 0 ,3 9 726 4 SUBA SE ADMIN FAC ' 6 ,8 7 5

301 M IS S IL E MOTOR MAGS ( 5 3 ) 1 2 ,2 6 3

31 3 U TIL S 6 S IT E IMPROVEMENTS 1 7 ,8 7 0
FY -1 97 7 (CONT)

PRO JECT

NUMBERS BANGOR

CURRENTWORKING

ESTIMATE

317 SMALL ORD MAGS (10 ) 1, 03 6332 BACHELOR ENLIST ED QTRS 4,4 25

350 BUS STATIO N 90352 RECREATIO N COMPLEX 4,8 89

353 THEATER 986

354 LIBRA RY 605356 OUTDOOR PLAYING FIEL DS 402

358 POST OF FICE 691

400 RE-ENTRY BODY MAGS (6) 441

BANGOR TOTAL

INDI AN ISLAN D

65 ,1 65

269A RELOCATIO N OF ORD FAC TO INDIAN ISLAND

POINT MUGU

9,7 00

265 M IS SI LE TRACKING FA CI LI TY 2,6 00
FY -1 97 7 (CONT)

CURRENT

PROJE CT WORKING

NUMBERS ESTIMA TE

CAPE CANAVERAL

771 M IS SI LE STORAGE F A C IL IT IE S 989

773 TRIDENT IN ST R. EQ UIP . INS TAL LAT ION 232

COMMUNITY IMPACT AS SIS TA NC E 8, 00 0

FY 1977 TOTAL 86 ,6 86

FY -1 97 8

BANGOR

114A DELTA AC CE SS TR ES TL E, DRYDOCK 602114B DRYDOCK 45 ,5 87

223 SE RV ICE PI ER 5 PORT CONTROL OF FI CE 10 ,4 26

230 BASE CAF ETE RIA 905

255C ALARM CONTROL CENTER (3RD INCREMENT) 177
F Y -1 9 7 8 (CON T)

CUR REN T

PR O JE C T WOR KING

NUMBERS ES TI M AT E

40 S U T IL S 5 S IT E IMPR OV EM EN TS (5 TH ) 3 ,5 4 8

429 AUT O HOB BY SHO P 1 ,0 1 5

43 0 TEN N IS CO UR TS 209

432 CO NSO LI DAT ED ME SS 5 ,4 8 4

510 NAVY EXCH AN GE CO MP LEX 2 ,9 4 8

COMM UNITY' IM PA CT A S S IS T A N C E 1 1 ,5 0 0

FY 19 78 TOT AL 8 2 ,4 0 1

F Y -1 9 7 9

40 8 R E F IT SU PP OR T FAC 800

502 U T IL S 5 S IT E IMPR OV EM EN TS 3 ,0 8 3

517 SUBCRE W R E F IT ME SS 9 40 '

520 P .W . FAC (2N D INCR EM EN T) 1 ,6 5 0

COMMUNITY IM PA CT A S S IS T A N C E 1 0 ,3 0 0

FY 19 79 TO TA L 1 6 ,7 7 3
TRIDENT MILITARY CONSTRUCTION STATUS

(As o f 31 J a n 19 79 ) 

C o m p le te d T r i d e n t C o n s tr u c tio n

P r o j e c t

Num be r T i t l e A c tu a l BOD*

FY -1 97 4

00 5 U t i l i t i e s and S i t e Im p ro v em en ts 7 

c o n t r a c t s ; 7 BO D'd

V a r ie s

00 6 TRIDENT T r a in in g F a c i l i t y ( 1 s t) 2 F eb 77

01 6 W are house 13 A pr 76

01 8 E x p lo s iv e H a n d li n g W har f #1 26 J a n 78

74 1 W har f an d D re d g in g 21 May 76

742 L aunch Com pl ex 25 (A lt) 12 J u n 75

74 3 M i s s i l e C h e c k o u t B u ild in g s 26 Aug 75

744 G u id a n c e /T e le m e try B ld g

FY -1 975

2 6 Au g 7 5

10 1 V e r t i c a l M i s s i l e P a c k a g in g B u ild in g >2 14 Ma r 78

102 M i s s i l e A ss em b ly C o n t B u ild in g 31 Aug 77

104 I n e r t C om ponen t P ro c B u ild in g 3 O ct 77

106 M i s s i l e P a r t s W are h o u se 2 Sep 77

10 7 T e c h n ic a l S e r v i c e s B u ild in g 14 Aug 76

108 E n g in e e rin g S e r v i c e s B u ild in g 12 No v 76

110 L im ite d A re a G u a rd h o u se (o n e c o n t r a c t ) 3 J a n 79

113 SWS S u p p ly W are h o u se 3 O ct 76

115 SWS M a in te n a n c e Sho p 17 Ju n 77

116 TRIDENT T r a i n i n g F a c i l i t y (2 nd) 2 Feb 77

118 B a c h e lo r E n l i s t e d Q u a r te r s 15 A pr 77

12 1 E n l i s t e d D in in g F a c i l i t y 18 A pr 77

122 U t i l i t i e s an d S i t e Im p ro v em en ts

38 c o n t r a c t s ; 33 BO D'd

V a r ie s

127 M i s s i l e A ss em b ly B u ild in g #1 4 O c t 77

128 W ea po ns Q u a lity E v a lu a tio n C e n te r 21 De c 76

226 USMC Ad min & B e r th in g 15 A pr 77

31 1 F i r e S t a t i o n

FY -1 97 6

12 J u n 76

10 3 N o n - D e s tr u c t T e s t an d I n s p e c t i o n B ld g 12 J a n 78

105 T r a n s f e r F a c i l i t y 14 J u l 78

20 5 E x p lo s iv e C om ponen t C h e c k o u t B u ild in g 11 May 77

206 R e -E n try Bo dy B u ild in g #2 27 Feb 78

20 8 F la m m able S to r a g e B u ild in g 2 Sep 77

209 M a in te n a n c e S u p p o rt B u ild in g 23 Sep 77

21 1 E q u ip m en t M a in te n a n c e B u ild in g

D ry dock S i t e P r e p a r a ti o n P h a se I 24 J u n 77 114 O c t 7 8

214 M i s s i l e M oto r M a g azin es 16 Feb 77

21 5 S m a ll O rd n an ce M a g azin es 16 Feb 77

232 POL Tan k Far m 30 J u n 77 245 U t i l i t i e s an d S i t e Im p ro v em en ts

42 c o n t r a c t s ; 22 BO D'd

V a r ie s

76 1 DA SO /D ata P r o c e s s /S u p p o r t F ac (C ap e 

C a n a v e ra l)

13 J a n 78

24 7 M i s s i l e A sse m bly B u ild in g 42 30 J a n 78

25 2 C o n t r o l l e d I n d u s t r i a l F a c i l i t y 4 De c 78

25 3 B a c h e lo r E n l i s t e d Q u a r te r s 2 De c 77 26 1 R e f i t I n d u s t r i a l F a c i l i t y 9 O c t 78 266 D e lta S u p p o rt F a c i l i t y 10 No v 78

309 D is p e n s a r y /D e n ta l C l i n i c 7 No v 77

B e n e f i c i a l O ccupancy D ate
P r o j e c t

Numb er T i t l e A c tu a l BOD

204

210

256

257

270

27 1 

318 

360

F Y -1 9 7 6 /7 7

(F unded i n F Y - l l u s in g FY -76 A u th o r ity )

D o ck sid e H a n d li n g B u ild in g 

C o n ta in e r S to r a g e A re a 

C o ld S to ra g e F a c i l i t y 

SUBMART

V e r t i c a l M i s s i l e Pk g B u ild in g #3 

R a d io g ra p h ic I n s p e c t i o n B u ild in g 

M a g n e ti c S i l e n c i n g F a c i l i t y 

F i r e S t a t i o n (Mod)

FY -1 97 7

27 O ct 78

3 Nov 77

9 Ju n 78

18 J a n 78

16 Aug 78

26 O ct 78

15 Dec 78

15 Se p 78

228

234

301

313

317

332

400

265

77 1

773

B a c h e lo r O f f i c e r s Q u a r te r s 

SUBSAT B u ild in g 

M is s i l e M oto r M a g azin es 

U t i l i t i e s & S i t e Im p ro v em en ts 

29 c o n t r a c t s ; 8 BO D'd 

S m a ll O rd n an ce M ag azin es 

B a c h e lo r E n l i s t e d Q u a r te r s 

R e -E n tr y Bo dy M ag azin es 

M is s i l e T ra c k in g F a c i l i t y ( P t. Mugu) 

T r i d e n t M i s s i l e S to r a g e F a c i l i t y (C ap e 

C a n a v e ra l)

T r i d e n t T e s t / I n s t r u E q u ip I n s t a l l (C ap e 

C a n a v e ra l)

20 Nov 78

7 J u l 78

15 Ja n 79

V a r ie s

22 J u l 77

7 Ju n 78

15 J a n 79

1 O ct 78

17 May 78

16 Sep 77

405

FY -1 97 8

U t i l i t i e s & S i t e Im pro vem ents 

9 c o n t r a c t s ; 2 BO D'd

V a r ie s

♦ B e n e f ic ia l O ccupancy D ate
297

TRIDENT MILITARY CONSTRUCTION STATUS

(As o f 31 J a n 19 79 )

S c h e d u le d C o m p le ti o n s

P r ° j e c t S c h e d u le d

Nu mbe r______________________________ _ T i t l e _______________________C o m p le ti o n s

FY 19 74

01 4 R e f i t P i e r #1 and D e lta S u p p o rt P la tf o r m 3 /7 9

FY 19 76

2 5 5 A A la rm C o n tr o l C e n te r S y st em ( 1 s t I n c r ) 3 /8 0

26 8 A m m unitio n P i e r ( I n d ia n I s l a n d ) 3/7 9

30 3

FY 19 76 /F Y 19 77

(fu n d e d i n FY77 u s in g FY7 6 A u t h o r i ty ) 

R e f i t P i e r #2 3/7 9

FY 19 7 7

255 B

26 3

26 4 

269A 

350

352

353

354 

356 

35 8

A la rm C o n t r o l C e n te r S y ste m (2 nd I n c r ) 3 /8 0 

P u b l i c W or ks F a c i l i t y 7 /8 0 

S u b a se Ad min 4/7 9 

R e lo c a tio n o f O rd n a n c e F a c i l i t y ( I n d i a n I s l a n d ) 3 /8 0 

Bus S t a t i o n 5 /7 9 

R e c r e a tio n C om ple x 8/7 9 

T h e a te r 5 /7 9 

L ib r a r y 5/7 9 

O u td o o r P l a y i n g F i e l d s 3/ 79 

P o s t O f f i c e 4 /7 9

FY 19 78

114A D e lta A c c e s s T r e s t l e , D ry dock

114B D ry dock P h a s e I I

22 3 S e r v ic e P i e r & P o r t C o n tr o l O f f i c e

23 0 B ase C a f e t e r i a

255C A la rm C o n tr o l C e n te r ( 3 rd I n c r )

429 A u to Hob by Shop

430 T e n n is C o u rts

43 2 C o n s o lid a te d M ess -O pen

510 Nav y E x ch an g e C om pl ex

7 /8 0

7 /8 0

8 /8 0

12/7 9

3 /8 0

7 /8 0

1 2 /7 9

12/7 9

12/7 9

FY 19 79

40 8 R e f i t S u p p o rt F a c i l i t y 4 /8 0 50 2 U t i l i t i e s and S i t e Im p ro v em en ts V a r ie s 51 7 S u b m ari n e Crew R e f i t M es s 12/8 0 520 P u b l i c W or ks F a c i l i t y (2 nd I n c r ) 5 /8 0 •
298

SUMMARY 

FY 80 PROGRAM

TRIDENT Comm unity Im pact Ass istanc e

1. STATE HIGHWAYS $2,50 0,0 00

2. COUNTY ROADS $4,60 0,0 00

3. MUNICIPAL ROADS $ 800,000

4. SCHOOLS $2,10 0,0 00

TOTAL $10,0 00,00 0

1. St ate Hig hw ay s $2 ,500 ,000

T his am ou nt w ill fund th e fi na l co ns truc tion 

in cr em en t of S tate Route 303 . G ra nts ha ve 

bee n aw ar ded from FY’s 76 th ru 78 for p re ­

lim in ar y en gin eeri ng, ri ght- of- w ay and 

co nst ru ct io n of SR 3 as w el l as im pr ov emen ts to SR 303 . All st ate el ig ib il ity for 

Se ction 608 hi gh way fu nd in g has bee n 

ap plied to th ese two st ate ro ad p ro je c ts .

When co m pl et e, th e to ta l co ntr ib ution from 

Se ction 608 w ill be : SR 3 - $1 5.'4 millio n 

(i ncl udin g $.25 millio n utilize d fo r a comp re h en si v e stu dy); SR 303 - $4 .5 mill ion.

(DO T, FHWA Pr og ra m )

2. Co un ty Roa ds $4 ,6 00 ,000

T his g ra n t w ill b e th e th ir d of fo ur in cr em en ts 

fo r im pr ov em en ts to B uc kl in Hill Roa d, a 

m aj or east -w est ro ute in C en tr al Kits ap Co unty 

se rv in g T ri d en t co m m un iti es . From FY 76 &

77 fu n d s, $200,000 w as gra nte d fo r pr el im in ar y 

en g in ee ri n g . App ro xi mately $1 .9 mi llion 

i s e sti m a te d from FY79 fu nd s fo r 

en g in eeri n g and' ri ght- of- w ay a c q u is itio n . The amount 

re q u este d in FY80 w ill b e utilize d fo r the 

fir s t co nst ru ct io n p h ase. App ro xi mately 

$9 .6 million has be en id en tifi ed as th e tota l 

p r o je c t c o s t, and th e b a la n c e o f $ 2 .9 w ill be 

re q u e ste d fro m S e c ti o n 608 fu nds in FY 81 .

(D O T , FHWA P ro g rn m )
299

3. Mun icipal Ro ad s $ 800,0 00

T hes e fu nd s w ill b e ut iliz ed to co ns truc t 

th e Por t O rc ha rd an d Po ulsbo b y-p ass es 

in Kits ap Co unty at a co st of app ro ximately 

$40 0,000 each . P ri o r y e a r fu nd s in the am ount o f 

$400,000will be use d fo r traf fi c co nt ro l sy stem s 

in Bre m er to n b rin g in g t he total of mun icipal 

ro ad i m pr ov em en ts to ap pr ox im ately $1. 2 mi lli on .

(DO T, FEWA P ro gr am )

4. Schoo l Con stru ct io n 2,1 00 000

Co nti nuati on of th e s ch oo l co ns tru ct io n pr og ra m 

th at b eg an in FY76 ($3,3 25 ,826 ) an d FY77 

($1,0 34 ,70 0) . In FY80 Cen tral K itsap sc ho ol 

dis tr ic t will re q u ir e $2 ,100 ,000 . Thi s 

ca te gory , whe n comp let ed with th e FY 82 

re quest will to tal ap pr ox im ately $7.5 mill ion.

(KEW Pro gr am )

I PREPARED STATEMENT

NAVAL SUBMARINE SUPPORT BASE, KINGS BAY

Admiral Iselin. Turning, if I might, to Kings Bay, with your 

concurrence, I would submit my full statem ent for the record and 

highlight several elements of tha t statem ent.

Senator Huddleston. That will be included in the record in its 

entirety.

[The stateme nt follows:]
300

Prepared Statement of Rear Adm. u . 6. Isel in, CEC, u .S. navy

COMMANDER, NAVAL F A C IL IT IE S EN GIN EERIN G COMMAND

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMM ITTEE:

I AM PLEASED TO HAVE TH IS OPPOR TUN ITY TO APPEA R BEFORE 

YOU TO ADDRESS THE FI SC A L YEAR 1980 REQUEST FOR MI LITA RY 

CONSTR UCTION AT THE NAVAL SUBMARINE SUPPO RT BASE AT KIN GS 

BAY , GE OR GIA . BEFORE ADDRE SSIN G THE STA TUS OF PRIOR YEAR 

PROGRAMS AND TH IS Y EAR'S REQ UEST, I WOULD LI KE TO BR IEFL Y 

SUMMARIZE THE EVENTS LEAD ING TO THE MIL IT AR Y CONSTRUC TION 

REQUIREMENT AT KIN GS BAY .

BACKGROUND

EARLY IN 1975, NEGO TIA TIO NS BETWEEN THE UNIT ED STA TES 

AND SP AIN WERE PRO GRE SSING ON A CHANGE TO THE TREATY OF

FR IEND SH IP AND COO PER ATION. ONE OF THE SI G N IF IC A N T PR OV IS IO NS

OF THE 1976 AMENDED TREATY OF FR IE ND SH IP AND COOPERATION WITH

SPAIN WAS THAT THE UNITED STATED WOULD RELOC ATE THE FLEE T 

BALL IS TIC M IS SIL E SUBMARINE SQUADRON FROM IT S EX IS TIN G BASE 

OF OPE RAT ION S AT ROTA , SP A IN . TH IS REL OCA TION NE CESSI TA TED 

THE ESTA BLISH MENT OF A NEW HOME PORT FOR THE SQUADRON, 

PREF ERAB LY IN THE CONTINENTAL UNIT ED ST AT ES . IN JUN E 19 75 ,

SI TE SELECT ION ST UD IE S WERE IN IT IA TED TO DETERMINE THE BEST 

ATL ANT IC COAST SI T E NOT ONLY FOR LOCATIO N OF THE SQUADRON TO 

BE WITHDRAWN FROM ROT A, BUT ALS O THE BEST LOCATIO N FOR POS EIDON 

SSB Ns WHEN BACKFIT TED FOR THE TRIDEN T I C -4 M IS S IL E , AND FOR

ANY NEW SS B N s.

A FI NA L ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA CT STATEMENT WAS PU BLISH ED

IN DECEMBER 1977 AND FI LE D WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRO TEC TION

AGENCY ON 7 DECE MBE R.

ON THE 26TH OF JAN UAR Y 1978, THE SEC RET ARY OF THE NAVY 

ANNOUNCED THE SE LE CT IO N OF KI NG S BAY FOR THE LOC ATI ON OF 

THE SUBMARINE SUPPORT BASE FOR REL OCA TIN G THE SUBMARINE
301

SQUADRON FROM ROTA, SP AI N AND FOR SUPPOR T OF BACK FIT TED 

POSEI DO N SUB MARINES.

STAT US OF EAST COAST TRIDE NT SIT E SELECTION

THE EAS T COAST BASING OF THE TR IDEN T SUBMARINE WILL BE

A SEPA RATE DECIS IO N FROM THE S IT E SELE CT ION DE CI SI ON MADE IN 

JANUARY 1 9 7 8 OF KINGS BAY, GEORGIA AS THE SUPPOR T BASE FOR 

THE RELOCATED POSEIDON SQUADRON. IN ORDER TO SHOW HOW THE 

TWO DECIS IO NS ARE SEPA RATE I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WITH THE

COMMITTEE THE PROCEDURE FOR SE LE CT ION OF THE TRIDEN T EAST

COAST S IT E .

THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY IS REVIEWING THE CH IE F OF NAVAL

OPE RATIO NS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EAST COAST BASING OF TR ID EN T.

THE FI VE FIN A L IS T CANDIDATE S IT E S ARE:

NARRAGANSETT BAY, RI 

CHEATHAM ANNEX, VA 

CHA RLESTON, SC 

KIN GS BAY, GA 

MOSQUITO LAGOON, FL

WHEN A PRE FER RED ALTERN ATIVE S IT E SE LE CT ION IS MADE 

AND ANNOUNCED, A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA CT STATEMENT WILL 

BE PREPARED AND FI LED FOR THE SELECTED S IT E . PU BL IC HEA RINGS 

WILL BE HELD, AND RESPO NSES TO ALL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WIL L BE INCORPORATED IN A 

FIN AL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STA TEM ENT . FOLLOWING THE REQ UIRED 

30 DAY WAITIN G PE RIO D, THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY WILL ANNOUNCE 

H IS FIN AL DECI SI ON ON THE EAST COAST TR IDEN T S IT E .

PR IO R YEAR PROGRAMS

TO PRO VID E FOR THE ARR IVAL OF THE SUBMARINE TENDER IN 

JULY 1 9 7 9 , THE ARRIV AL OF THE FLOA TIN G DRYDOCK IN JANUARY 1 9 8 0 , 

AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIRED SUP POR T F A C IL IT IE S , THREE

FI SC A L YEARS OF MCON PROGRAMMING WERE PLA NNED. THE IN IT IA L

*♦1-638 0 - 79 - 20
302

MILITA RY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM WAS IN FY 1 9 7 8 , U T IL IZ IN G THE 

EMERGENCY CONSTRUC TION AUTHORITY OF SECTION 202 OF THE ANNUAL

MI LITA RY CONSTRUCTION AUT HORIZATION ACT. THE TOTAL ESTIM ATE

OF CONSTRU CTIO N COSTS FOR THE FY 1 9 7 8 PROGRAM AT LAST YE AR S' 

HEA RINGS WAS $ 2 3 ,5 2 0 ,0 0 0 . THE CURRENT EST IMATE IS $ 2 8 .1 M IL LI ON.

INCLUDED IN T H IS IN IT IA L YEAR OF CON STRUCTION I S :

O DREDGING TO ALLOW THE REQUIRED ACC ESS AND MOORING

AT THE KIN GS BAY S IT E .

O CON STRU CTION OF THE SUBMARINE TENDER MOORING

F A C IL IT IE S .

O CONSTRUCTION OF THE FL OA TING DRYDOCX MOORING

F A C IL IT IE S .

O IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EX IS T IN G BERTHIN G TO PROV IDE

FOR LAYBERTHS.

O U T IL IT Y SUPPO RT SYSTEM REQ UIRED TO SUP POR T THE

WATERFRONT OP ER ATI ONS.

FY 1 9 7 8 CON STRUCT ION REQUIRED TO SUP POR T THE IN IT IA L 

OP ER ATION AL CA PA BIL IT Y IN JU LY 1 9 7 9 I S WELL UNDERWAY.

FY 1 9 7 9 MIL ITAR Y CON STR UCTIO N PROGRAM AT KING S 3AY WAS 

AUT HORIZ ED AT $ 3 9 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0 AND INC LUD ED THE FOLLOWING CO NSTRUC TIO N: 

O DREDGING WHICH IS AN EX TE NS ION OF THE IN IT IA L 

FY 1 9 7 8 DR ED GING .

O LAND A C Q U IS IT IO N .

O WATERFRONT F A C IL IT IE S REQ UIRED FOR DIRE CT SUPPORT 

OF THE R E FIT OP ER ATI ON.

O PU BL IC WORKS F A C IL IT IE S ,

O GENERAL SUPPO RT STOR AG E.

O BASE AD MINISTR AT ION F A C IL IT Y ,

O AD DITION AL BASE SUPPO RT F A C IL IT IE S .

O U T IL IT Y SYSTEMS NEC ESSARY TO SUP PORT THE 3A SE 

SUPPORT FA C IL IT IE S.
303

IN AD D IT IO N , CON GRE SS INC LUD ED 2S0 UN IT S OF HO US ING AT 

$ 1 1 ,5 0 5 ,0 0 0 IN THE FY 197 9 M IL IT AR Y CO NS TRUC TIO N B IL L . SU BSE QU EN TL Y, DOD HAS AU THORIZE D AN AD DI TI ON AL $ 2 ,3 9 0 ,0 0 0 FOR 

SOL AR A P PLI CA T IO N S FOR THE HO US IN G.

MOST OF THE FY 1979 PROGRAM I S ALREADY UNDER CON STRU CTION .

TH IS YE AR ’ S REQUEST

THE FI SC A L YEAR 1980 REQUEST FOR KIN GS BAY IS FOR $ 2 0 .3 

M IL LI O N . INCLUDED IN THE PROGRAM ARE AD DIT ION AL F A C IL IT IE S 

REQU IRED TO SUPPO RT THE RE FI T OPER ATIO N WHICH WILL BE LOCATED 

IN THE BASE INDU STRIA L AR EA , A MED ICAL DENTAL C L IN IC , PERSONNEL 

SUPPO RT F A C IL IT IE S , AND U T IL IT IE S AND ROADS FOR THE PERSON NEL 

SUPPORT AND FAM ILY HOUSING AR EA S.

PROGRAM CHANGES

COST AND SCO PE VA RIA TIO N HEA RINGS WERE HELD ON THE FY 1979 

PROGRAM, WHICH AUTH ORIZE D THE REPROGRAMMING WITH IN KIN GS BAY 

FY 1979 FUNDING OF $9 97,0 00 FROM ROADS TO THE POTABLE WATER 

SYS TE M.

AT TH IS TIME IT IS AN TI CI PA TE D THAT A REPROGRAMMING 

REQUEST WILL BE REQU IRED FOR THE FY 1978 KIN GS BAY PROGRAM.

THE TOTAL COST VA RIAT ION IS CURRENTLY BEI NG ANALYZED AND 

SHOULD BE AV AIL AB LE IN A P R IL . THE COS T VA RIAT ION IN THE FY 

1978 PROGRAM I S PR IM AR ILY ATT RIB UTABL E TO UNFORES EEN SUBS URFACE 

SO IL S CO ND ITION S AT THE DRYDOCK MOORING AND TR ES TL E. WE CONDUCTED THE NORMAL, PRUDENT SO IL S IN VE ST IG AT IO N REQU IRED FOR 

DE SIG N OF A PILE -SU PP OR TE D STR UCTURE, BUT DURING CON STRUCTION 

HAVE ENCOUNTERED AN UNUSUAL DISCO NT INU OUS LIME STON E LAYER NOT 

REVEAL ED IN OUR EA RL IER IN VE ST IG ATI ON S.

THE NA VY’ S IN IT IA L PLAN FOR CON STR UCT ION AT KI NG S BAY 

INCL UDE D THREE FI SCA L YEA RS OF M IL IT AR Y CO NS TR UC TIO N. IN MY 

STATEMEN T DURING LA ST YE AR ’ S HEA RI NGS , I IN DI CA TE D THAT THE 

ESTIM AT E AT THAT TIM E FOR F A C IL IT IE S REQ UIR ED IN THE FI SCA L
304

YEAR 1980 PROGRAM WAS 2 8 .4 M ILLI ON DO LL AR S, BR IN GI NG THE TOTAL 

EST IMA TE FOR KI NG S BAY CO NS TR UC TIO N, EX CLUD ING FAMILY HO US ING, 

TO 91 MI LL IO N DO LL AR S. TH IS YEARS REQ UEST AT 2 0 .3 M ILLI ON 

DO LL AR S, IF FUNDED, WIL L BRIN G THE KI NG S BAY CON STR UCT ION 

TOTA L TO 83 MI LL IO N DOL LAR S EXC LUD ING FA MI LY HO US IN G. 

AD DITIO NA L F A C IL IT IE S FOR THE ROTA RELO CATIO N WIL L BE REQU IRED 

BEYOND TH IS YE AR S’ RE QU EST.

I AM PR OV IDING SUPPL EMENTAL INFORMATION FOR THE RECO RD. 

MR. CHA IRM AN, WE REQU EST YOUR CONT INUIN G SUPPOR T OF TH IS 

VI TA L PROGRAM AT KI NG S BAY .
305

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

KINGS BAY MILIT AR Y CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

F Y -1 9 8 0

NAVAL SUBMARINE SUPPORT BASE, KINGS BAY, GEORGIA

PROJECT

FY 19 78 PROCRAM (SECTIO N 202 MCON)

S u b m ari n e T e n d er M oori ng 

D re d g in g

E l e c t r i c a l D i s t r i b u t i o n S yst em 

F lo a t in g Dry Do ck M oori ng F a c i l i t y 

B e r th in g W ha rf Im pro vem ents 

Se wage T re a tm e n t an d C o ll e c t io n 

F a c i l i t i e s

W a te r T re a tm e n t an d D i s t r i b u t i o n 

F a c i l i t i e s

T e le p h o n e F a c i l i t i e s

S te am an d C om pre ss ed A ir P la n t

FT 19 78 TOTALS

FY 19 79 PROGRAM (REGULAR MCON)

H e li c o p te r L an d in g Pad 

T e le p h o n e F a c i l i t i e s 

T r a n s i t S to r a g e B u il d in g 

D re d g in g

W a te r f r o n t S e r v ic e B u ild in g 

REHABIL IT ATIO N

S ta g in g B u il d in g 

E quip m en t M ain te n a n c e B ld g s 

P u b lic Wo rks M ain te n an ce B ld g s 

G e n e ra l S u p p ly S to r a g e B u il d in g 

Fla m m ab le S to r a g e B u il d in g 

B ase A d m in is tr a tio n B u il d in g 

B ase F ir e an d S e c u r i ty F a c i l i t i e s 

R e c r e a tio n B u il d in g 

P la y in g C o u rts an d F ie l d s 

E l e c t r i c a l D i s t r i b u t i o n S yst em 

Se wage T re a tm e n t an d C o ll e c t io n 

F a c i l i t i e s

W ate r T re a tm e n t an d D i s t r i b u t i o n 

F a c i l i t i e s

Roa ds

V e h ic u la r P a rk in g 

La nd A c q u is itio n

FY 19 79 TOTALS

AUTH

AMT

($ 000)

FUNDED

AMT

($ 000)

CURRENT

WORXING

ESTIMATE

( $ o o o ) STATUS*

1 ,7 5 0 1 ,7 5 0 1 ,9 6 9 UC

8 ,7 0 0 8 ,7 0 0 9 ,2 8 2 UC

750 750 91 4 UC

6 ,4 0 0 6 ,4 0 0 9 ,0 3 7 UC

600 60 0 73 9 UC

1 ,8 5 0 1 ,8 5 0 2 ,2 7 7 UC

1 ,7 0 0 1 ,7 0 0 2 ,0 5 5 UC

1 ,1 0 0 1 ,1 0 0 1 ,3 3 9 UC

770 770 463 UD

2 3 ,6 2 0 2 3 ,6 2 0 2 8 ,0 7 5

17 0 17 0 25 2 UD

28 0 28 0 20 1 UC

790 79 0 624 UC

1 5 ,6 0 0 1 5 ,6 0 0 1 6 ,5 5 8 UC

160 160 15 6 UC

510 51 0 62 0 UD

1 ,5 5 0 l» 5 5 0 1 ,5 3 0 UD

1 ,7 5 0 1 ,7 5 0 1 ,5 3 8 UD

83 0 33 0 83 7 UD

460 46 0 45 8 UC

1 ,7 8 0 1 ,7 8 0 1 ,4 2 5 UD

730 730 83 6 UD

230 230 22 4 UD

220 22 0 397 UC

1 ,5 5 0 1 ,5 5 0 1 ,3 6 2 UC

2 ,7 5 0 2 ,7 5 0 3 ,4 0 2 DC

1 ,8 0 0 1 ,8 0 0 2 ,7 9 7 UC

3 ,8 0 0 3 ,8 0 0 99 9 UC

700 70 0 763 UC

3 ,4 4 0 3 ,4 4 0 3 ,4 4 0 I ?

3 9 ,1 0 0 3 9 ,1 0 0 38,4 1 9

•STATU S: UD » U nd er D esig n

UC • U nd er C o n s tr u c tio n 

IP • In P ro g re s s
ROTA SQUAD RON RE LO CA TI ON PROGRAM AT KI N GS BAY

C$000)

CONSTRUCTION

' 71

23,62 0

79

39 ,10 0

80

20, 330

co

DEFENSE ACCESS ROADS 2,2 61 £

FAMILY HOUSING 11 ,50 5*

23 ,62 0 • 50 ,60 5 22 ,59 1

* $2.3 9M a d d it io n a l au th o ri ze d fo r s o la r sy st em s.
307

KINGS BAY PROGRAM REVIEW

Admiral Iselin. Our initial construction program in 1978 of approximately $24 million permitted us to do major dredging at the 

Kings Bay site, to construct a submarine tender mooring facility, to 

construct a floating drydock mooring, and to provide some utility 

support for the area.

In fiscal year 1979, we had $39 million authorized for Kings Bay, 

with more dredging, land acquisition, waterfront facilities, public 

works facilities, administration facilities, and additional utilities.

In addition, the Congress included 250 units of housing in the 

fiscal year 1979 construction bill.

Most of the 1978 and 1979 programs is currently under construction and some of it nearing completion. The fiscal year 1980 request for Kings Bay is $20.3 million. Included in the program are 

additional facilities in the base indu stria l area, a medical-dental 

clinic, personnel facilities, and utilities and roads.

Mr. C hairman, Admiral Hall is with us today to help in answering questions. He is the project manager for the Trid ent program, 

and we would be pleased to respond to any questions th at the 

committee has.

TRIDENT PROGRAM AN D SCHE DULE

Senator Huddleston. I think we have some questions here that 

can be answered in open session. The last information we had was 

that the first Trident submarine is scheduled for delivery in 

August 1981. The initial operational capability of the Bangor facility is planned for Ju ly 1981.

Are th ese still curren t dates?

Admiral Hall. Mr. Chairman, the first submarine, the Ohio, will 

be delivered at Electric Boat in November 1980. It will arrive at 

Bangor in Jul y 1981 and will deploy on its initial operational 

patrol in August 1981. The Bangor support facilities will be ready 

when t ha t ship arrives in Ju ly 1981.

Senator Huddleston. Now, the program calls for 13 submarines 

through 1984; is t ha t accurate?

Admiral Hall. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. And as it is now configured, the Bangor 

site can accommodate how many?

Admiral Hall. The Bangor base was designed and construction 

has proceeded on the basis of supporting 10 submarines. The planning and design features are such that i t can be expanded easily to 

20 submarines. During the steady state operation, and by that we 

refer to 10 submarines in one squadron, we would expect to see a 

submarine tying up every 9 to 10 days, which would be thre e 

submarines in port at any one time. You could add one submarine 

to the 10 tha t are planned and you would have a very difficult time 

seeing any impact.

With the 12th one you will see a little more, and by th e time we 

reach 13, you would expect to see some impact on the effectiveness 

of tha t base.

Senator Huddleston. So you would require additional expenditures and expansion?

Admiral Hall. Yes, some expansion work.
/

308

Senator Huddleston. And if you went to 20, of course, you would 

have a substantial expenditure?

Admiral Hall. We would have to have a substantial change at 

that point, including environmental impact statements and additional facilities, particularly for personnel, and also for the industria l support.

EAST COAST BASING OF TRIDENT

Senator Huddleston. I note that the Secretary of the Navy is 

currently reviewing recommendations for the east coast basing of 

Trident. Is the east coast base for th e subm arine a foregone conclusion, irrespective of the force level cited?

Admiral Hall. No, the east coast basing is not a foregone conclusion. It is being considered at the present time by the Secretary of 

the Navy. We expect a decision on that sometime in the future.

Senator Huddleston. We went throu gh the site selection process 

for the Poseidon boats at Kings Bay and many of the Trident 

considerations are the same. Doesn’t that lead to the conclusion 

th at Kings Bay would be a preferred location?

Admiral Hall. The site selection for Poseidon included a consideration for expansion to include Trident in the east coast analysis. 

The five east coast sites that were reviewed the n were all candidates, and they are all candidates today for the Trident east coast 

base.

We would expect varying impact from the environmental aspects 

in considering those same sites today.

TRIDENT ALTERNATIVES

Senator Huddleston. Given the extrem ely large investment cost 

for each Trident submarine, has the Navy undertaken any study of 

possible alternatives to expanding the present 13-boat program?

Admiral Hall. The present 13-ship Trident program is based on 

13 ships through the 5-year defense plan. The present plan, as far 

as the number of Trident submarines is concerned, is to continue 

building Trident at a rate of th ree ships every 2 years. But there 

has been no final determination of force levels.

Senator Huddleston. And what about consideration of smaller 

type ships?

Admiral Hall. The fiscal year 1979 Conference Report in the 

Department of Defense Appropriation Authorization Act, while 

fully supporting the continued building of Trident submarines, also 

authorized $3 million to support preliminary design studies of a 

high performance, cost effective, although not necessarily smaller 

SSBN.

Senator Huddleston. Would that have any impact on facility 

requirements if you went tha t route?

Admiral Hall. Yes, it could, if that decision were made. The 

Secretary of the Navy, also in parallel with that study, is currently 

conducting a submarine alternative study which includes the examination of alter native SSBN design concepts.
309

SUBMARINE SUPPORT FACILITY, KINGS BAY

Senator Huddleston. What is your current estim ate for additional construction at Kings Bay beyond the request of $20.3 million 

this year? You have a total construction cost of about $83 million; 

is th at correct?

Admiral Hall. Yes. Support of the Poseidon squadron at Kings 

Bay will require some additional facilities, Mr. Chairman. But we 

have not and we would prefer not to finalize that until a final 

decision is made on where the east coast base for Trid ent is to be 

sited. At that time we will need some bachelor quarters, and, 

dining and some other personnel support facilities for the people 

who are there.

Senator Huddleston. What portion of the request is associated 

directly with the Trident C-4 missile?

Admiral Hall. The C-4 missile is going to be assembled at 

Charleston. It will be shipped to Kings Bay by ship, the same 

procedure we use in gettin g the Poseidon missile to Rota. Therefore, there are no special handling or processing facilities required 

at Kings Bay, because we are going to use essentially the same 

pipeline.

Senator Huddleston. Has the backfitting program itself required 

specific construction?

Admiral Hall. The backfitting program does not require anything a t Kings Bay.

COMMUNITY IMPACT AT KINGS BAY

Senator Huddleston. Have you made an assessment of the military impact on the largely rur al Kings Bay area, and what additional public services may be required?

Admiral Hall. Yes, sir; we can expect to see an overall effect on 

the community because we are rapidly increasing the number of 

people in the locale. It is a rur al community and we will expect to 

see changes in the neighborhood, social problems from the intr oduction of new people. There will be different life styles, and people 

will come from different regions. The environmental impact statement predicts some social stress, prim arily associated with housing. 

In addition there are the traditional things, police and fire protection and child care.

Senator Huddleston. We will have a legitim ate claim for some 

impact assistance?

Admiral Hall. There will be an impact, with 1,600 military 

people and about 1,900 dependents added to the area. Admiral 

Iselin, do you want to talk to the impact?

Admiral Iselin. We have with us Commander Wheeler of the 

Office of Economic Adjustment who has worked on section 608 

community impact assistance for Bangor. I would like to ask Commander W heeler to comment on plans for Kings Bay.

Commander Wheeler. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Huddleston. We are glad to have you with us.

Commander Wheeler. The community has requirements for 

impact assistance at the present time and those requirements are 

being satisfied through normal funding programs administered by 

the various Federal agencies.
310

TRIDENT COMM UNITY IMPACT ASSISTANCE

Senator Huddleston. How much has been appropriated through 

1980 for the Trident community impact assistance?

Admiral Iselin. To date through 1979, $36.8 million which has 

been appropriated and we are requesting $10 million in this y ear’s 

program for a total of $46.8 million at Bangor.

Senator Huddleston. Tha t will be a t Bangor?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. You might provide for the record a listing 

of th e impact assistance which gives the amounts funded through 

fiscal year 1979 and requested for 1980, and futu re estimates that 

you might have.

Admiral Iselin. We will do so, yes, sir.

[The information follows:]

LISTIN G FOR IMPA CT ASSISTANCE

[Dollars in millions)

Fiscal year

1979 Prior

funded used

Fiscal year

1980 Fiscal war

requested 19 81 '

Schools. ..........

Roads:

State.......

Co unty. ....

Municipal...

Water. ............

Sewer...........

Fire.................

Law and ju st ic e.. 

Social and health

Libraries. .........

Parks . ............

Planning. .........

$7.0 $4.4

14.4 5.5

5.0 0.2

0.3 0

2.4 1.6

.3 0

1.2 .6

3.1 1.7

.5 0

.4 0

1.0 .1

1.2 .6

$2.1

2.5

4.6

0.8

36.8 14.7 10.0 ............

1 Program undefined at present concerning specific protects, but total will not exceed 58 .7 million

Note.— Total program funding $ 5 5 5 million
Department of the Air Force

STATEMENT OF COL. RICHARD H. HINZ, DIRECTORATE OF ENG INEERING AND SERVICE S, U.S. AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE STRATEGIC PROGRAMS

Senator Huddleston. We will now move to the Air Force. Colonel Hinz, please proceed.

Colonel Hinz. I would like to give a couple of excerpts out of my 

statement and then file the unclassified. And if we can proceed to 

closed, we will continue th e briefing.

It is a pleasure to appear here today to discuss with you that 

portion of our fiscal year 1980 construction request in support of 

Air Force strategic programs. This year, we are requesting funds 

for facilities for the air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) and the MX. With your permission, I will briefly discuss the status of these 

programs and the facilities we a re requesting this year.

AIR -LA UNCHED CRU ISE MISSILE (ALC M)

The Air Force began the air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) 

program to counter the pressure of Soviet a ir defense development. 

The ALCM is a small nuclear-armed, air-to-ground missile to be 

carried by the B-52G. It will provide an accurate, long-range str ategic capability in a standoff role while reducing B-52 exposure to 

air defenses.

The ALCM program has thus far been concentrated in the research, development and procurement programs. Procurem ent 

began in fiscal year 1978 with the preliminary production prototype program, followed by the fiscal year 1979 R. & D. program for 

$237.8 million and the fiscal year 1979 procurement program for 

$156.9 million.

The missile rollouts by two contractors will be completed early 

this spring, followed by a competitive fly-off program at Edwards 

Air Force Base, Calif. At the same time, 12 missiles will be purchased from each competitive fly-off contractor.

In fiscal year 1980, $364.4 million is included in the Air Force 

procurement program to allow purchase of an additional 225 

ALCM’s. A production rate of 40 ALCM’s per month will be 

achieved during the lat ter part of the fiscal y ear 1980. The production rate and employment option are keyed to the planned B-52G 

modification rate of 40 bombers per year. Initially, ALCM’s will be 

employed externally on pylons. The resulting weapons mix provides the most effective loading of gravity bombs, SRAM’s and 

ALCM’s.

The fiscal year 1980 military construction program request for 

$14.2 for ALCM involves the construction required to support the 

initial alert capability of the B-52G/ALCM. This construction inOll)
312

eludes an integrated maintenance facility as well as munitions 

storage igloos. Remaining construction to support the full operational capability is currently proposed for the fiscal year 1981 

construction program.

Current facilities are inadequate for simultaneous support for 

both the SRAM and ALCM. For example, the ALCM m aintenance 

facility will be better tha n thre e times the size of a SRAM facility. 

Similarly, the ALCM requires much larger storage igloos th an does 

the SRAM. We do, however, plan to subsequently modify the existing SRAM maintenance facility to be a warhead maintenance and 

inspection facility in order to keep construction costs to a minimum. The timing of our fiscal year 1980 MCP request is in direct 

response to the initial ale rt and operational capability of the B52G/ALCM. The munitions storage igloos must be completed prior 

to missile delivery and the integrated maintenance facility must be 

completed in sufficient time to allow for installation and testing of 

equipment, nuclear certification of the facility, and missile checkout.

M -X PROGRAM

The M-X program has been focused along two paths: Advancing 

the state of critical missile propulsion and guidance technology, 

and developing new basing concepts as alternative s to the curren t 

Minuteman and Titan fixed-silo deployment. The Air Force is now 

ready to provide direct facility support for the M-X in preparation 

for the system coming into the AF inventory.

This past year, we have made significant progress in resolving 

the major issues surrounding the acquisition of a follow-on landbased ICBM system. Most of the issues have focused on the basing 

mode.

The Air Force, afte r considerable analysis, determined that a 

multiple protective stru cture (MPS) basing mode consisting of vertical shelters was the favored altern ativ e for redressing the projected vulnerability of our c urrent Minuteman force.

However, questions have been raised about MPS regarding SALT 

verification, arms control compatibility, and limiting the threat. As 

a result, the Air Force is currently reevaluating a variant of the 

air mobility concept to determ ine its merits as an alternative to 

MPS.

The issues surrounding the missile itself are not as complex. This 

new medium throwweight missile provides significant flexibility for 

adaptation to future threats or SALT constraints. For example, the 

increased throwweight can be used to carry penetration aids without sacrificing force effectiveness. We are also incorporating the 

latest guidance and control technology into the system to provide 

an effective capability against the entire Soviet target spectrum.

Our fiscal year 1980 construction request includes $5.4 million for 

modification of Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) 

propulsion test facilities required for full scale M-X rocket motor 

development. The next generation of large solid propellant rocket 

motors for the M-X missile are forecast to begin testing at Arnold 

in late calendar y ear 1981.

These ground tests are required to simulate the high altitude 

flight environment for the M-X stages II, III, and IV. Ground
313

testing has always been a necessary phase in the development of 

high altitude upper stage rocket motors, regardless of the missile 

on which they will be employed, and therefore, testing becomes 

increasingly important as more sophisticated technology is cranked 

into the system.

Currently, there are no facilities in the United States capable of 

altitude testing of the large M-X rocket motors. However, there 

are facilities at Arnold which have been used to test s imilar rocket 

motors that can be modified, at reasonable cost, to perform the 

tests tha t are essential for successful high altitude flight.

Additionally, the modified AEDC test cells could be used during 

the motor production phase to assess as-built performance as well 

as the effects of aging on motor performance.

As rocket motor testing progresses, we plan on requesting followon facilities in our fiscal year 1981 construction request for Vandenberg AFB. These facilities will be required to support the first 

missile te st flights in January 1983.

Since a final basing mode decision has not yet been made, we are 

unable to forecast an accurate requirement for construction of MX beddown facilities. However, once a basing mode decision is 

made, we foresee follow-on operational facilities in the fiscal year 

1982 program.

Mr. Chairman, that is a synopsis of my statem ent and if we 

could go into closed session, I would like to have Colonel Hatch, 

from our Operational Requirements Directorate, give you a briefing on the M-X.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Senator Huddleston. At this time it will be necessary to close 

the session and request those of our visitors who do not have 

appropriate security clearances to de part at this point.

[Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to go into 

closed session.]
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

The subcommittee met in executive session at 3 p.m., Hon. 

Walter D. Huddleston (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Huddleston and Sasser.

STATEMENTS OF:

COL. RICHARD H. HINZ, DIRECTORATE OF ENGINEERING AND

SERVICES, U.S. AIR FORCE

COLONEL HATCH, STRATEGIC FORCES DIRECTORATE, U.S. AIR

FORCE

OVERVIEW BRIEFING ON M -X PROGRAM

Senator Huddleston. Gentlemen, the subcommittee will be in 

order.

The room has been cleared and we will proceed in executive 

session.

I und erstand that Colonel Hatch will give the briefing.

Colonel Hatch. I am Colonel H atch, and I would like to give you 

Ian overview briefing on the M-X program.

I would like to sta rt the briefing by stating that the United 

States is facing a problem. The problem is the projected increasing 

vulnerability of our land-based ICBM forces caused by an increasing Soviet th reat.

(314)
315

MAJOR SOVIET

IMPROVEMENTS

Our solution to the problem is the modernization of our own 

ICBM force with the deployment of an M-X missile in a survivable 

basing mode.

STRATEGIC FORCES' ACQUISITION AND OPERATING COSTS: —

COMPARISON OF

US OUTLAYS AND ESTIMATED DOLLAR COST FOR USSR

£
316

SOVIET THREAT

I will spend a few m inutes with you on the Soviet thre at. What 

causes this thr eat is a major investment on the part of the Soviets 

in their strategic forces acquisition. On the c hart, vertically, I have 

billions of dollars and, horizontally, calendar years, and it may be a 

little bit difficult to see, but beginning in the late 1960’s you can 

see that there is a disparity in investment ranging between zero 

and $15 billion a ye ar on strategic forces between the Soviet Union 

and the United States. It is not any 1 year that makes the difference, but it is that continued investment over time tha t causes us a 

problem.

The result of that major investment on the part of the Soviet 

Union is a large number of ballistic missiles. What you see here 

depicted in light colors are the U.S. missiles, and again it is hard to 

see but these are time periods here, 1965, 1970, and our Minuteman III deployed in 1970, and th e Soviets fourth generation ICBM’s 

SS-17’s, SS-18’s, and SS-19’s now being deployed with a fifth generation on the drawing board.

[Chart 5 deleted.]

Colonel Hatch. One example of that Soviet capability of the 

fourth generation is the SS-18, a very large missile, very capable 

missile, a MIRVed missile, 10 multiple independently targeted 

reen try vehicles, and with excellent accuracy, as evidenced in the 

[deleted] version with a circu lar erro r probable of [deleted] nautical 

miles.
317

SOVIET INITIATIVES

INCREASE BOOSTER EFFICIENCY

This Soviet initiative to MIRV, combined with the accuracy 

trends leading to force wide accuracies on the order of [deleted]

6

7

*♦1-638 0 - 79 - 21
318

nautical miles by 1990, combine to give them more targets covered 

and increase the ir damage potential.

SOVIET ICBM IMPROVEMENTS

[Chart 9 deleted.]

Colonel Hatch. I have on th is chart depicted thre e things: In the 

upper left you can see the growth of the Soviet ICBM MIRV 

deployment, and beyond approximately 1983 these numbers exceed 

[deleted]. At the same time, as time goes on the accuracy of those 

missiles increases as shown here, with the resultant U.S. ICBM silo 

survivability depicted on the right.

Now, at approximately [deleted], and as you can see our projections out here, in [deleted] show a negative trend. This then leads 

to our requirements for an advanced ICBM.
319

AD VA NC ED ICBM

REQUIREMENT

RECENT DOD STUDIES ON TRIADS AND DYADs

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: "WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT TR IADs 

WITH MODER NIZED ICBM s ARE NO MORE COSTLY THAN DYADs . . . OF 

COMPARABLE LEVELS OF CAPAB ILITY.

WHEN FACTORS SUCH AS FORCE DIVE RS ITY. DILU TION OF THE 

SOVIET THREAT AND OVERALL CONFIDENCE ARE CONSIDERED, I AM 

PERSUADED THAT OUR BEST PO LIC Y CHOICE IS TO M AIN TAIN THE 

TR IAD BY MO DE RN IZING OUR IC BM FORCES.

TH IS WILL REQUIRE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW 

M IS SIL E AND A NEW SU RV IVAB LL BA SING SY STE M"

We have completed recent studies in the Department of Defense, 

and as the Secretary of Defense has reported in his fiscal year 1980 

posture statement, we have concluded the Triads with modernized 

ICBM’s are no more costly tha n CYADS. When factors such as 

force diversity, dilution of the threat, and overall confidence are 

considered, the Secretary has been persuaded that our best policy 

is to maintain the Triad by modernizing our ICBM force.
320

DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND BASED ICBMs

• SU RVIV ABIL IT Y

• INDEPENDENCE FROM WARNING

• NOT VULNERABLE TO SAME ATTACK MODE 

AS OTHER TR IAD LEGS

• ENDURING USEFULNESS

• FL EX IBILITY OR WA RFIGHTING

• LOW OPERATING AND SUPPORT COSTS

U .S . POLICY

These are the desired characteristics that we wish to preserve. 

Survivability, independence from warning, a force which is not 

vulnerable to the same atta ck mode as other legs of the Triad, 

enduring usefulness, flexibility or warfighting with good command 

and control and low operating and support costs.
.32 1

STRATEGIC NUCLEAR GUIDANCE

NU CL EA R FORCES SH OU LD BE ST RU CT UR ED TO :

DETER ACROSS CONF LICT SP ECTR UM

IN H IB IT COERCIO N

IF DETERRENCE FA IL S . THEREFORE

ST RATE GIC NU CL EA R FORCES

MUST HAVE W A RFIG HTIN G

C A P A B IL IT Y TO :

OU R STR ATE GIC

NU CL EA R FORCES MUST BE

CA PA BL E OF:

CO NTROL ESCALATIO N

TER MINATE CONFLIC T ON

FAV ORABLE TE RM S

/5

In reviewing our nuclear policy guidance with you, nuclear 

forces of course should be stru ctured to deter conflict across the 

spectrum and if deterrence fails, these forces must have the capability to control escalation and terminat e the conflict on terms 

favorable to th e United States.

[Deleted.]

We have done a number of dynamic exchange c alc ulations, and 

I won’t take you through all of the analyses but I would like to 

give you a summ ary of the results.

[Chart 14 deleted.]

These are the deficiences as we see them of our programed force 

with no advanced ICBM.

[Deleted.]
322

M X PROGRAM

PROGRAM EVOLUTION

AIR FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DSARC II

DSARC RESPONSE 

FUTURE PROGRAM 

FY 80 BUDGET

/<

U.S. EFFORTS

Our solution then is the M-X program, which I will describe 

briefly for you.

MX PROGRAM EVOLUTION

NOV 71 SAC REQUIREMENT

MAY 74 START ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT

74 - 78 MIS SILE SYSTEM DE FINITION

BASING MODES EXPLORED

DEC 78 DSARC

AIR FORCE RECOMMENDATION: 9?' MX 

IN VERTICAL SHELTERS
323

In the evolution, in 1971 we had the Strategic Air Command 

requirement, we sta rted advanced development in 1974, and for th e 

last 4 years we have been exploring missile systems definition and 

basing modes. We had a recent DSARC on th e December 5 wherein 

the Air Force recommended deployment of the 92-inch M-X missiles in vertical shelters. Here is some more on the basing mode.

BASIN G MODE

? _________________________

MULTIPLE PRO TECT IVE STRUCTURES

CREATE ARTIFICIA L TARGET STRUCTURE

■ ? - z - J - ' ~ ► •• -

p -

p

REDUCES SOVIET FIRST STRIKE INCENTIVE

SHELTER

We speak of multiple protective structures and what we are 

considering here, for example, is a national force of 200 M-X 

missiles deployed in a much larger number of vertical shelters, on 

the order of 20 to 1. Hence, we have created an artificial target 

stru cture and the enemy would find that futile to attack. Thus we 

believe we have removed the incentive for Soviet first strike.
324

VERTICAL SHELT ER

The vertical shelter is here. This is a picture of the southwest, 

and I will go into some more detail, but you can see tha t a vertical 

shelter will be at the end of each one of these roadways, approximately here and here.
325

Here is a blowup of one of those areas fenced with the shelter 

depicted here. This area is approximately 3 acres in size and with 

the force that I described earlier this would require about 25 

square nautical miles of land to be fenced.

Senator Huddleston. Is tha t silo above the ground?

Colonel Hatch. No. Let me show you on the next slide. Tha t is 

an illusion of the perspective, and it is a cutaway.

327

Here is a better picture, Mr. Chairman. That is ground level 

there.

I have one more that I will show you. These are electromechanical devices which will raise it up and this is the operational support equipm ent and this is the missile in its launch cannister.

Senator Huddleston. Essentially the same as they are now, 

except they are portable.

Colonel Hatch. Yes, sir, and without the large amount of support equipm ent that is currently associated with each Minuteman 

silo.

Here now would be after an atta ck where the missile is elevated 

to raise it above the debris level, and the cannister is opened and 

the missile is ejected and the first stage ignition actua lly takes 

place when the missile is above ground.
328

MISSILE

MISSILE CHARACTERISTICS

84 2"

I I I

AIRS

G&C

’ -L IQ U ID

CLASS 7

CLASS 2

CLASS 2

BOOSTER 92 " M X 83" M X

NO. OF RVs

MIS SIL E GW (LBSt 191.000 162.000

THROWWEIGHT <LBS>

-

RANGE (NMt

76 5"

AIRS

G&C

LIQUID

CLASS 7

< I

92 " — 83 '

The missile now is shown here. We are focusing on two missile 

candidates. This is the 92-inch M-X which I stated we recommended to the DSARC on December 5. It is essentially class 2 propellant 

in the first and second stages and it has a liquid post-boost vehicle 

and it is capable of the performance as indicated in the center of 

the chart.

On the right side, and we can slide this over a bit, is an 83-inch 

missile which is shown. In the 83-inch dimension it is common with 

the Trident II missile. Tha t is a dimension th at is determined by 

the submarine launch portal. There is a possibility that the M-X 

missiles stages 1 and 3 could become the Trid ent II missile stages 1 

and 2. That is with possible cost savings to the Navy from that 

approach.
329

DSARC II DIRECT ION

• CONCLUSIONS

•N EED FOR SURVIVABLE ICBM SYSTEM

• MPS COULD MEET NEED

• LOW RIS K. FEASIBLE SOLUTION

•C OST AND SCHEDULE REALISTIC

• CONCERNS FOR MPS

• VERIF IA BIL IT Y • ARMS CONTROL CO MPA TIBILITY

• ABIL IT Y TO BOUND THREATS

• RESULTS

• AIR MOBILITY MA Y BE ALTERNATIVE

• CONTINUE MPS AND MX MIS SILE PROGRAM

• AIR FORCE AIR MOBILITY STUDY REQUESTED

•INCLU DE DISPERSED. EXPEDIENT BASES

• COMPARE WITH RESULTS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES

• DSARC

• MARCH ‘ 79

• COMPARE AIR MOBILE SYSTEM WITH VE RTICA L SHELTER (M P S I

• CONFIGURATION GUIDELINES

Just to review with you quickly the direction that we received 

from the DSARC II which was chaired by Dr. Perry, they agreed 

with our conclusions on the need for a survivable ICBM system, 

agreed that MPS could meet the need, some concerns were raised 

in the SALT context and they also asked us to review the air 

mobile alternative, and we are currently studying that a ltern ative, 

and are scheduled to present the resu lts of that study to ano ther 

DSARC on the 31st of this month.
330

MISSIK DfRlOTMENT AREA

1 would like to spend jus t a minute with you discussing one of 

the issues that has been raised on the vertical shelter system and 

that is verification. We like to separate verification in the missile 

assembly area from concealment which we view to occur in the 

missile deployment area.

We have set up a very deliberate process here in the assembly 

area. The components of the missile will arrive here and be assembled here. This is an open roof building, a missile buildup process 

that will take 4 or 5 days and should be quite visible to Soviet 

NTM.

Now, once you have completed that buildup process you move 

into the deployment area. This is a very wide gage railroad track 

with a unique transp orter car that moves the missile, and there is 

no other way into this deployment area so we feel that we have 

sufficiently separated the verification process from the comcealment process.

Now this is a diagram that I wanted to show you of the launcher 

simulator segments, that large vehicle t ha t placed the missile in its 

cannister in the shelter. In so doing, it will pick up these launcher 

simulator segments which will be in all of the other shelters and 

make trips inbetween the other shelter and we believe we can 

preserve location uncertainty on our part and particula rly keep the 

Soviets from knowing which shelter has the missile.
331

Just a quick review for you of our air mobile study concept 

which is not yet complete but you do remember the October 1974 

demonstration where we extracted the Minuteman missile from 

the rea r of a C-5 and ignited the first stage, so it is a technically 

feasible concept.
332

The concept as we have it laid out consists of a small number of 

main operating bases, a larger number of a lert bases, 30 or more, 

and then two levels of dispersal sites, primary and secondary. In 

this case the number of sites could exceed 100 and in this case the 

secondary dispersal sites could exceed 2,000. We are nominally on a 

day-to-day alert at the alert bases. Should we have unusual Soviet 

submarine activity or, for example, in times of inte rnation al tension such as the 1973 Mideast conflict, the aircraft that are normally on the alert bases would disperse to the much larger number of 

bases and then in times of conflict we would make use of the 

secondary dispersal bases.
333

This is a picture of the McDonnell Douglas aircraft and I showed 

you a picture of the Boeing aircraft a littl e earlier.

M-X BUDGET DATA

M-X FUNDING

F 1980 iR D T&E*. $670. OM

C O N TIN U E/IN IT IA TE FSED FOR M IS S IL E AND MP S BA SING MODE 

•M IS S IL E : $ 4 4 1 .OM

ENG INEERING DEVELOPMENT OF:

FOUR M IS S IL E STAGES 

GU IDA NCE AND CONTROL SYSTEM 

• REENTRY SYSTEM 

• B ASIN G : S22 9. 0M

COMPLETE VERT ICA L SHELTER ENGINEERING TEST BED 

ENG INEERING DEVELOPMENT OF: '

MP S FACIL IT IE S 

MEC HA NICA L SYS TEM S 

ELECTRONIC SUPPORT SYSTEMS 

SUPPORTS FY 86 IOC

F- 1080 ' MILCON I : $5 4M

M O DIF IC ATIO N OF ROCKET MOTOR TEST CELL AT AEDC

My final slide is on the budget data for this year [chart 34]. We 

have requested $670 million in research and development, broken 

down as shown, but I would like to focus now on the $5.4 million 

for military construction that we have requested for modification of

*♦ 1 -6 3 8 0 - 79 - 22
334

the rocket motor test facilities at the Arnold Engineering Development Center, and with that I will tur n the meeting back over.

Senator Huddleston. Let me ask you a couple of questions about 

our policy there.

Given our projected vulnerability and what needs to be done to 

correct it, which is more important? Is it the question of basing a 

few missiles or even the present missiles to eliminate their vulnerability, or the actual improved new missiles, such as the M-X 

itself?

Colonel Hatch. Are you trying to distinguish between the importance of moving ahead with the missile as distinguished from 

moving ahead with the basing mode?

Senator Huddleston. Yes.

Colonel Hatch. In my judgment we need to move ahead with 

both. Originally the missile which was judged to take about 7 years 

to develop which left us a little time to consider the basing but we 

have used up tha t time and if we want to meet the September 1986 

IOC, which we have established, we need to move ahead in fullscale engineering development on both the missile and the basing.

Senator Huddleston. The characteristics of the missiles itself 

are superior enough over the Minuteman to justify without regard 

to the basing?

Colonel Hatch. Yes. For example, we have looked at the altern ative of deploying the Minuteman III missile in a new basing mode, 

and that is not as cost effective as deploying the new missile.

Senator Huddleston. Do you have a cost figure estimate on 

that?

Colonel Hatch. A force of 200 M-X missiles deployed in vertical 

shelters in 1978 dollars has been priced at approximately $20 billion.

Senator Huddleston. Has the decision been made that this is the 

best way to go rat her tha n the air launch, or the trench launch?

Colonel Hatch. No, sir, we have another DSARC on the 31st of 

this month. We are comparing in that DSARC th e air mobile and 

the vertical shelter alternativ es. The Air Force is also carrying the 

trench, the hybrid trench as a feasible backup to the vertical 

shelter should any unforeseen problems arise.

Senator Huddleston. Your projections on vulnerability and our 

ability to respond are based on, I assume, a first strike by the 

Soviet Union?

Colonel Hatch. T hat is correct.

Senator Huddleston. And then the question arises of whether 

we react on launch or whether we react on the actual attack, so 

which one are you figuring?

Colonel Hatch. I believe you are making reference to what we 

would call the launch under attack as an alternative.

Senator Huddleston. T hat is right.

Colonel Hatch. We certainly don’t rule that out as an option. We 

have n’t in the past and we won’t in the future, but we do not 

consider that to be a substitute for a survivable ICBM force, one 

that can endure and ride out the attack.

Senator Huddleston. And then respond.

Colonel Hatch. Yes.
335

Senator Huddleston. Well, is the present strategy th at there 

would be no response until that is done?

Colonel Hatch. The present strategy provides the option.

Senator Huddleston. The option is still there.

Colonel Hatch. But the option we seek is the survivable basing 

mode for the ICBM force.

Senator Huddleston. Did you have a furthe r presentation, Colonel?

Colonel Hinz. That is all we have.

AIR LAU NCH ED CRUISE MISSILE

Senator Huddleston. On the cruise missile, are you still conducting competitive studies on that? Will the configuration of the 

model finally selected have any major effect on the facility requirements?

Colonel Hinz. No, sir, the planned facilities that we have are 

compatible with both of the competitors.

Senator Huddleston. Aside from the need to select the version 

to be procured, are there any other major scheduled milestones in 

the program which would affect IOC and therefore your construction requirements?

Colonel Hinz. I would say our timely source selection probably is 

the major milestone. In the full production phase, there are two 

major milestones. For example, our fiscal year 1980 construction 

requirements are driven primarily by the production decision that 

we anticipate by February 1980, about a year from now; and, the 

associated first ale rt capability about September 1981.

Senator Huddleston. And in addition to the $14.2 million for 

1980, how much do you anticipate will be construction needs resu lting from deploying these weapons?

Colonel Hinz. We have a full runout cost of jus t under $200 

million, or $199 million.

Senator Huddleston. I suppose the decision has been made to 

fully pursue and deploy this weapon?

Colonel Hinz. Well, our program is planned toward achieving a 

December 1982 initial operating capability. The formal production 

decision won’t be made until February 1980, at which time we will 

have a DSARC III decision for full production.

Senator Huddleston. Are these systems involved in the SALT 

talks a t the present time?

Colonel Hatch. I am not an expert in SALT details, sir, but it is 

my understanding that the cruise missile related issues are addressed and the deployment of the cruise missile system is not 

prohibited.

Senator Huddleston. The numbers might be, however, might 

they not?

GLCM

Now, the ground-launched cruise missile, I understand , is not a 

strategic weapon as such, but the missile is derived from the Navy 

Tomahawk program.

You are requesting $17 million for GLCM-related construction in 

fiscal year 1980. What is this requirem ent?
336

Colonel Hinz. In our final presentation we are no longer requesting $17 million, and it is not contained in the fiscal year 1980 

budget as presented to you. We can address the $17 million during 

our testimony this year; however, we have deleted this from the 

fiscal year 1980 budget because our IOC has slipped to 1983. Tha t 

gave us an opportunity not to include it.

Senator Huddleston. You would expect it to come along later?

Colonel Hinz. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. Senator Sasser, do you have any questions?

Senator Sasser. No, I do not, Mr. Chairm an. I would hope that 

Colonel Hatch might stay over about 10 minutes and give me the 

benefit of the initial briefing tha t he gave you. I apologize for being 

late. I got tied up and I couldn’t make it.

Colonel Hatch. I will be happy to do that.

m-x deployment

Senator Huddleston. On configuration of the m ultiple protective 

structures, would each one of those silos have to be built with a 

capability of launching, and what would tne construction cost be?

Colonel Hatch. Let me be distinct and call it a shelter and the 

cannister with the missile in it is essentially the launcher. So the 

shelters will not have the same construction costs as the original 

Minuteman silos.

Senator Huddleston. The ones that are used now?

Colonel Hatch. Yes, and in particu lar depending upon the spacing and I will include the cost of the connecting roads, the price 

ranges between $1 and $2 million per shelter. Of course tha t has to 

be a function of the total number deployed but the rough figures I 

gave you are reasonable.

Senator Huddleston. Now, jus t comparing the way a missile 

installation is set up now, where is your control cente r for an 

installation as we have it here, the potential launch sites?

Colonel Hatch. It will be in the deployment area.

Senator Huddleston. It will still be in the general area?

Colonel Hatch. Yes.

Senator Huddleston. And the missile would be transported by 

rail to where it should be?

Colonel Hatch. We will build up those sections and take them on 

that rail tran spo rter from the missile assembly area, where verification is accomplished into the deployment area, and in that large 

vehicle that I showed you, that tran spo rter emplacer has a cab on 

it about the size of a Terex Titan, and that is the one that Jack 

Nicklaus hits a sand wedge out of on TV.

Senator Huddleston. How do your conceal that and movement 

from th at point on?

Colonel Hatch. The vehicle is not concealed and when observed 

from overhead would be seen, and there are about 40 of these 

vehicles. In the concept that I was discussing the tran spo rter emplacer would make periodic visits to the shelters and in some cases 

would be dropping off a missile, and in some cases would be exchanging simulators. Those are the rods that I showed you in the 

briefing that don’t look like a missile but they have all of the
337

properties of a missile, the mass and other signatures such that we 

will be sure that sim ulation of th e missile is accomplished.

Senator Huddleston. How long would you expect a missile to 

stay in th e same silo?

Colonel Hatch. It could stay there appoximately 6 months, assuming no maintenance difficulties were encountered, so we are 

not talking about dashing between these shelters. This is a very 

deliberate sort of thing.

Senator Huddleston. And the truc k would be moving all of the 

time, the transp ort?

Colonel Hatch. Some of the tran spo rters would.

Senator Huddleston. Does this cause any difficulty with the 

targeting system, the guidance and the fact that it may be in a 

different location when it is actually fired?

Colonel Hatch. No, sir.

Senator Huddleston. The guidance is set so that it would be 

covered?

Colonel Hatch. Once th e missile in its cannister has been placed 

in a shelter, and the guidance system alined, there will be no 

degradation.

AIR MOBILE BASIN G MODE

Senator Huddleston. If you were to go to an air mobile situation, what kind of facilities would be required there? We are n’t 

talking about having them in the air all of the time, are we?

Colonel Hatch. No, sir, we are not talking about having them in 

the air all of the time. We are talking about different stages of 

alert. The day-to-day a lert would be handled at the 30 or so bases 

that I described as ale rt bases, a nd crews would be housed there in 

an alert facility much as the bomber airc raft crews are housed 

today, and standing alert. On receipt of tactical warning, those 

crews would go to the airc raft and the aircraft would be flushed.

Senator Huddleston. Does th at mean an actua l launch?

Colonel Hatch. By tactical warn ing I mean our warning of a 

missile attack, e ither an SLBM launch or an ICBM launch.

Senator Huddleston. An actual launch has been made?

Colonel Hatch. Yes.

Senator Huddleston. At that time they scramble and they have 

[deleted] to get in the air.

Colonel Hatch. Or less. Now, prior to the a ctual lauch, as I said, 

in the event of unusual submarine activity on the part of the 

Soviets or internation al tension we do have a larger number of 

bases identified that these airc raft could move to and make target ­

ing more dificult for the Soviets, and then there is t he final stage 

of an even larger number of bases which could include the use of 

join t civil/m ilitary airports.

Senator Huddleston. So you would have to have an additional 

construction requirement. While they were not under any kind of 

special aler t, would they be housed inside of a stru ctu re or just be 

out on th e runways?

Colonel Hatch. Well, in the lat ter stages of dispersal we are 

talking about living aboard the aircraft, but that is-----
338

Senator Huddleston. That is afte r some kind of an alert has 

been received, before you have any action?

Colonel Hatch. Initially they would be a t the alert bases and we 

have an ale rt facility for the crew, and that includes fire equipment and so on.

Senator Huddleston. Have you figured the costs of th e various 

suggested methods of deploying the M-X, or have you gotten to 

tha t point?

Colonel Hatch. I can’t give you a final cost of the study that is 

under way for the air mobile concept, but it will be considerably 

higher than the $20 billion that I gave you as the total cost for the 

vertical shelter system.

Now, the military construction costs of the vertical shelter 

system will be higher than they will be for the air mobile.

Senator Huddleston. Is the trench idea out altogether?

Colonel Hatch. No, the trench we referred to, th e hybrid trench, 

is a feasible alternative and we have carried that and consider it 

an alternative to the vertical shelters should any unforeseen difficulties arise.

SALT IMPLICATIONS

Senator Huddleston. You have indicated, that SALT is one of 

the reasons for m aintaining th e air mobile option. Why is it considered less of a problem with respect to SALT than the mutiple 

aimpoint basing mode?

Colonel Hatch. Well, I believe both systems are verifiable but 

some people feel th at the air mobile would have less problems 

because the precedent has already been established in SALT for 

counting strategic aircraft.

Senator Huddleston. Is there any chance the Soviets might 

want to count each of these possible silos as a launch site, rather 

than just the ones tha t you might happen to have a missile in? All 

of the other restrictions, though, are on launchers, and launched 

vehicles, and this would change it onto the missile itself, because 

the verification is going to be on that missile that you run out 

there, is th at correct?

Colonel Hatch. The missile and the cannister constitute the 

launcher.

Senator Huddleston. That is contrary to all of th e other provisions, isn’t it, because they make no limitation on the number of 

missiles, do they?

Colonel Hatch. No. However, we believe that the process, that 

buildup process that we have described and the finite period of 

time that it takes will allow the counting of those missiles in the ir 

cannisters. I believe we have a precedent as far as concealment 

goes with the deployment area, with our own SLBM force because, 

as those are fitted out with missiles, they are counted, but once the 

submarines are deployed they are no longer available to be counted.

Senator Huddleston. But they still count the launch tube on a 

submarine and you may not have two missiles, but if you have 14 

tubes, that counts as 14.
339

Colonel Hatch. We would like to consider the missile in its 

cannister as the launcher.

Senator Huddleston. Tha t is something that I suppose will have 

to be negotiated.

Colonel Hatch. Yes.

Senator Huddleston. If you are going to roll it out there and let 

them see it, it looks like they would be satisfied, but it might be a 

sticky point.

Colonel Hatch. You are right, sir.

Senator Huddleston. If because of SALT or some other reason 

the decision was made not to deploy the system, but to maintain 

the capability to do so at a later date, what would this en tail in the 

way of construction?

In other words, would considerable construction funds have to be 

spent, even if it is not deployed, in order to maintain capability?

Colonel Hinz. We believe there would not be a significant construction advantage in this case. There is a problem of leadtime to 

do the construction itself; therefore, that leadtime is going to prevail and, as Colonel Hatch said, we feel the time to think about 

tha t, or move, we have already consumed in our development time. 

So we thin k the decision to proceed now is the problem, and 

deferral of th e construction is a deferral on the system, itself, and 

not much advantage could accrue.

Senator Huddleston. Colonel Hatch, if you didn’t have but one, 

eith er the change in the method of deployment or the new M-X 

missile, which one would be most im portant?

Colonel Hatch. We have to insure the survivability.

Senator Huddleston. The deployment is probably more important?

Colonel Hatch. We have to have the survivable basing mode.

Senator Huddleston. What are the basic improvements over the 

M-X over the Minuteman III?

Colonel Hatch. Well, the significantly larger payload, the throwweight and the fact that th at results in carrying a larger number 

of RV’s.

Senator Huddleston. T hat is [deleted] is it?

Colonel Hatch. It is [deleted] devices versus three.

Senator Huddleston. T hat is accuracy, I suppose.

Colonel Hatch. Accuracy is improved; yes.

Senator Huddleston. Are there any questions?

Senator Sasser. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Huddleston. I believe Senator Sasser wanted to hear 

some more information about the missile.

Senator Sasser. I want to get the briefing that I missed earlier.

Colonel Hinz. We would be happy to. We can give it to you here.

Senator Sasser. Thank you.

Senator Huddleston. I will turn the session over to you, Senator.

Senator Sasser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

submitted questions

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for responses subsequent to the hearing:]
340

Air-Launched Cruise Missile

Question. In addition to the $14.2 million budgeted in fiscal yea r 1980 for initial 

ale rt capability, what addi tional construction needs will result from deployment of 

this new weapon?

Answer. The fiscal yea r 1980 construction funds only partially cover the construction requ irem ents at the firs t B-52G/ALCM base. Fiscal year 1981 funds will be 

required to complete that construction. Overall, we est imate B-52G/ALCM related 

construction costs at $199.7 million in the n yea r dollars. This covers the construction required for th e 10 plann ed B-52G wings.

Question. To the exten t the system was not fielded, what level of construction 

would be necessary to suppor t mainte nance of th e technology or capability to field it 

on relatively shor t notice?

Answer. The tes t facilities now und er constructio n at Edwards AFB, Calif., are 

required for ALCM R.D.T. & E. but do not con tribute to deployment. Because the 

program has concurrent developme nt and procureme nt, the re is an urgency associated with our MCP request if we are to mee t the planned FAC d ate of September 

1981. If we delay a production decision, we will create a situation with a built-in 30- 

month lag before we can achieve an operational capability.

M-X ICBM Basin g

Question. As I und erstand your statem ent, there seems to be little contro versy 

over the need to enhance or improve our ICBM’s, at lea st with respe ct to the missile 

itself. The problems seem to lie in the basing mode to be used. Have we now totally 

discounted alternatives oth er tha n the multiple protective str ucture (MPS) and air 

mobility modes? Th at is, are we no longer talkin g abo ut trenches, special truc ks, 

and the like?

Answer. We have essentia lly narrowed the alt ern ati ves to two concepts—vertic al 

she lter (MPS) and the air mobile concept. These are curre ntl y being compared. The 

tren ch system is viewed as a feasible concept and is available as a back up system 

should some unforeseen problems arise with vertical she lters or the airmobile 

concepts. Oth er concepts have been eliminated from fu rth er consideration.

Question. Specifically, wh at does the MPS alt ern ati ve ent ail in the way of facility 

requiremen ts—num ber of silos, support facilities, num ber of actual missiles, and so 

forth?

Answer. For costing purposes, a notional force of 200 missiles would be deployed 

in 4,500 shelters. Construction activities would include the vertical shelters, connecting roads, a prim ary support are a for assembly and mainte nance of missiles/ 

laun chers and ma intena nce /security facilities with in the deployment area. Oth er 

construction involves special flight test facilities at Vande nberg AFB.

Question. In like manner, what is ent ailed under th e air mobility option?

Answer. The inten t is to use existing airfields with construction involving the 

building of ale rt air cra ft pads, possible runway extensions, fuel storage areas, and 

ale rt facilities.

Question. While no acc urate cost e stim ate can be made until one of th e options is 

actually selected, what are we talk ing about in ord er of mag nitude for each? What 

are the major construction cost differences?

Answer. We cannot prejudge the results of stud ies being completed bu t in a 

relative sense, the a ir mobile system is considerably higher t han an MPS system for 

equal levels of surviving capability. As for operations and support, the air mobile 

system is estima ted to be at least twice as expensive.

The construction costs of the air mobile system are about half of those of the MPS 

system ($5 billion versu s $10 billion).

Question. Wha t are the relative o pera tional advantages and disadvantages to each 

of the options?

Answer. MPS provides gre ate r capability in regard to survivability, independence 

from warning, more endurance, and lower costs. Both MPS and air mobile are 

inherently resilient to modest threat increases, however, MPS has the pote ntia l to 

cope with “open ende d” threat s. Both systems can be accommodated in terms of 

SALT verification. In summary, MPS is superio r in terms of capability and costs. 

MPS can cope with increased threat s, is verifiable and compatible with arm s control 

goals. The Air Force, at the March 31, 1979 DSARC, recommended full scale 

engineering developme nt of an M-X missile deployed in the multiple protective 

structur e basing concept.

Question. Wha t is the present schedule or tim etable for this program? What are 

its major milestones, and how would they affect construction requ irem ents?
341

Answer. The first flight test and IOC dates are the pacing items because they 

affect construction of test facilities at Vandenberg and subsequently the facilities in 

the deployment area. Our current program is paced by first flight in J anuar y 1983 

and an IOC in late 1986.

M-X and SALT

Question. If the decision were made not to deploy this new system due to SALT or 

other factors—but to m aintain the capability to do so at a later date, what would be 

entailed in the way of construction? I am clearly drawing an analogy to the decision 

on the so-called neutron bomb, although it’s a bit more complex here. I guess I am 

asking if considerable construction funds would have to be spent, even if the system 

is not deployed, in order to keep the capability.

Answer. The most reasonable approach to maintaining only an option to deploy 

M-X would be to complete full scale engineering development (FSED) on the missile 

and MPS basing system, but withhold the production decision. With this program, 

militap' construction requirements would be limited primarily to missile ground 

and flight test facilities at the Arnold Engineering Development Center, Vandenberg AFB, Calif., and Kirtland AFB, N. Mex. Costs associated with these requirements are estimated to be about $64 million (in fiscal year 1978 dollars).

As part of the research and development program, we would construct a vertical 

shelter engineering test bed to support FSED of the MPS basing mode. This facility 

would be used to examine innovative shelter construction methods, conduct experiments on preservation of location uncertainty and launch egress, and develop special techniques for SALT verification of our MPS system. The engineering test bed 

is located on the Nevada te st site.

Finally, it should be understood tha t while proceeding through FSED would 

retain the option to ultimately deploy th e system, it would still require at least 3 or 

4 years from a production go-ahead decision until initial operational capability could 

be achieved.

SUBCOM MITTEE RECESS

Senator Huddleston. The subcommittee stands in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., Thursday, March 22, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to 10 a.m., Friday, March 23.]

MILITARY CONST RUCTION APP ROPRIATION S FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 1980

FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 1979

U.S. Senate,

Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room 1223, Everett 

McKinley Dirkscn Office Building, Hon. Walter D. Hud dleston 

(chairman) presiding.

Present: Senator Huddleston.

DEP ART MENT OF DEFEN SE 

Department of the Navy

Navy Construction Program

STATEM ENT OF REAR ADM. D. G. ISELIN , CEC, USN, COM MANDE R, NAVAL 

FACILITIES ENG INEERING COM MAN D

Senator Huddleston. The hearing will come to order. Our session 

this morning deals with the fiscal year 1980 Military Construction 

request for the Dep artm ent of the Navy. A total of $551.9 million is 

proposed for new appropriation in the budget year; this is 

approximately $209 million below amounts enacted for fiscal 1979.

Our principal witnesses will be Rear Adm. D. G. Iselin, Com man der 

of the Naval Facilities Engineering Com mand, and Brig. Gen . E. C. 

Cheatham, Jr., representing the Marine Corps.

You may proceed, sir.

Admiral Iselin. Thank you, sir.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the Navy’s military 

construction budget. I will provide some brief comments on some 

special topics.

Senator Huddleston. Very good.

construction market conditions

Admiral Iselin. The first topic addresses military construction mark et 

conditions. Recent bidding experience indicates that a problem is 

developing in executing the fiscal year 1979 military construction 

program within authorized proje ct amounts. Some jobs have already 

come in well over the money. Most of these are now being redesigned 

(343)
344

and will be rebid. In each project, we arc trying to retain the basic 

functions needed to do the job.

We arc building to the same standards as those of 2 or 3 years ago. 

For example, basic structural, mechanical, and electrical systems cannot 

be significantly altered without increasing life-cycle costs. Energy 

conservation features have increased our costs somewhat, bu t this single 

factor does not account for the large cost increases that we are presently 

experiencing.

When construction costs depart from trend lines significantly over 

short periods of time, we find that our project estimates do no t hold 

up. This appears to be happ ening in 1979, so we expect to submit a 

num ber of scope reduction and cost variation reports as well as 

reprograming requests this year.

Because of the increase in c onstructio n costs, we are falling somewhat 

behind our earlier predictions for award of contracts because we are 

redesigning some projects to reduce costs and have to request cost 

variations and reprograming on others. Nevertheless, we are off to a fast 

start this year and I am still optimistic that we will come very close to 

meeting our goals for the full fiscal year.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

Pollution abatemen t; $86.6 million is requested for air and water 

pollution abatement. The Navy has made significant improvem ents with 

the $506 million of authority and appropriations prov ided since 1968. 

We have brou ght 98 percent of our air emissions into compliance, 

conv erted 50 percent of our ships ’ sanitary discharge systems to 

acceptable standards, elim inated all open dumps, and increased our 

shore estab lishm ent’s sanitary waste secondary treatment from 62 

percent to over 90 percent.

The fiscal year 1980 pollution abatement request includes $31 million 

for oil spill prevention facilities, $24 million for sanitary sewage systems 

and $19 million for industrial waste treatment and collection, plus $12 

million for other comp liance-oriented projects. It is estimated tha t $40 

million annually over the next 4 years will be requ ired to allow the 

Navy to comply with existing laws.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

In energy conservation, the energy conservation investment program 

provides for refit of existing facilities to save the most energy for the 

dollars invested. These projects will contribute to meeting the goal of a 

20-percent reduction in energy consumption of existing facilities by 

1985.

Through fiscal year 1979, these improvements will save the equivalent 

of 1,600,000 barrels of fuel oil annually. The $46.7 million requ ested 

this year will save the equivalent of approximately 300,000 barrels of 

fuel oil annually, and will amortize the investment in 6 years.
345

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM

We arc requesting $6 million for continuation of the Naval 

Occupational Safety and Health program. Prelim inary surveys have 

identified many deficiencies in occupational safety and health standards. 

At least $15 million per year in military construction will be req uired to 

correct these deficiencies over die next 5 years.

OTHER PROGRAMS

In addition to these programs, we are requesting $33.4 million for 

mino r construction, $284 million in constructio n for major comm ands, 

$57 million for plan ning and design, and $4.5 million for defense access 

roads. Details arc contained in my full statement, which I would like to 

subm it for the record.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator Huddleston. It will be received in its entirety, Admiral. 

[The statement follows:]
346

Prepared Stateme nt of Rear Adm. D. 6. Iselin, CEC, U.S. Havy

COMMANDER, NAV AL FACILITIES ENGINE ERI NG COMMAND

MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:

I AM RE AR ADMI RAL DONALD G. ISELIN, COM MANDER OF THE NAVAL

FACILITIES ENGINEERI NG COMMAND.

I AM PLEASE D T O H AVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE NA VY ’S M ILIT ARY

CONS TRUCTION BUDGET. BRIGADIER GENERAL ERNEST C. CHEATHAM, JR., UNITED

STATES MARINE CORPS, WIL L REVIEW THE MA RIN E CORPS POR TIO N OF THE BUDGET.

FISCAL YEAR 1980 MILITARY CONSTRUCTI ON APP ROP RIA TIO N

THE APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST IS 551.9 MILLI ON DOLLARS IN NEW 

OBLIGATIO NAL AUTHORITY. FOR COMPARISON, THE FISCAL Y EA R 1979 

APP ROP RIATION WA S 760.1 MIL LIO N DOLLARS.

PRESENTATION HI GHLI GHTS

I WILL PR OVI DE BRI EF COMMENTS ON SOME SPEC IAL TOPICS. I W ILL ALS O

REVIEW THE SIGNIFICA NT PROJECTS IN THE MAJ OR CO MMAN D PROGRAMS AND PROV IDE

TABU LATIONS OF THE AMOUNTS BY FACILITIES CATE GORI ES AND MAJOR COMMAND

AS A SUPPLEMENT.

CONSTR UCT ION MARKE T CONDITION S

RECENT BIDDING EXPERIEN CE INDICATES THA T A P ROB LEM IS DEVE LOPI NG

IN EXECUTING THE FISCAL YE AR 1979 MILITA RY CONS TRUCTI ON PROG RAM WITH IN

AUT HOR IZE D PROJ ECT AMOUNTS. SOME JOBS HAV E ALREADY COME IN WEL L OVER

THE MONEY. MOS T O F T HES E A RE NOW BEING RED ESI GNE D AN D WILL BE REBID.

WE ARE TRYING TO RETAIN THE BASIC FUNCTIONS NEE DED TO DO THE JOB. WE

ARE NOT GOLD PL ATI NG OU R FACILITIES. A B ARRA CKS TODAY IS BE ING BUILT

TO THE SAME STANDA RDS AS THOSE OF TWO OR TH REE YEARS AGO. A MACHIN E

OR PIPE S HOP HA S BAS IC STRUCTURAL, MECHA NIC AL AND E LEC TRI CAL SYSTEMS

THA T CANNOT B E SIG NIF ICA NTL Y ALT ERE D WITHOUT ALT ERI NG QUALITY AND

FRE QUE NTL Y INC REASING LIFE-CYCLE COSTS. SOM E COST INCREASES ARE

OCCURRING BEC AUS E WE A RE MAKING OUR BUILDI NGS M ORE ENERGY EFFICIENT.

HOWEVER, THIS SINGLE FACTOR DOES NOT ACCO UNT FOR THE LARGE COST INCREASES

THAT WE AXE PRE SEN TLY E XPER IENCIN G
347

WHEN CONSTRUCTION COSTS DEPART FROM TREND LINES SIGNIFICANTLY OVER

SHORT PERIODS OF TIME, WE FIND THAT OUR PROJECT ESTIMATES DO NOT HOLD UP.

THIS APPEARS TO BE HAPPENING IN 1979, SO WE EXPECT TO SUBMIT A SIGNIFICANT

NUMBER OF SCOPE REDUCTION AND COST VARIATION REPORTS AS WELL AS REPROGRAMMING REQUESTS THIS YEAR.

RELATED TO THE RECENT RAPID INCREASE IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS,

WE ARE FALLING SOMEWHAT BEHIND OUR PREDICTIONS FOR AWARD OF CONTRACTS

FOR PROJECTS AUTHORIZED IN FISCAL YEAR 1979. DELAYS ARE OCCURRING

BECAUSE WE ARE REDESIGNING SOME PROJECTS TO REDUCE COSTS AND MAY

HAVE TO REQUEST COST VARIATIONS AND REPROGRAMMINGS ON OTHERS, BUT

I AM STILL OPTIMISTIC THAT WE WILL COME VERY CLOSE TO MEETING OUR

GOALS FOR THE FULL FISCAL YEAR.

TRIDENT

IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET REQUEST, WE ARE ASKING FOR 19.8 MILLION

DOLLARS FOR TRIDENT. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1978, 475 MILLION DOLLARS

OF THE 539 MILLION DOLLARS APPROPRIATED FOR TRIDENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION HAD BEEN OBLIGATED. AN ADDITIONAL 28 MILLION DOLLARS IS EXPECTED

TO BE OBLIGATED BY OCTOBER 1, 1979.

NAVAL SUBMARINE SUPPORT BASE, KINGS BAY, KINGSLAND, GEORGIA

CONSTRUCTION IS PROGRESSING SATISFACTORILY FOR MEETING THE

JULY 1, 1979 DATE FOR RELOCATING THE FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINE 

SQUADRON FROM ROTA, SPAIN, TO KINGS BAY, GEORGIA.

THE REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980 IS 20.3 MILLION DOLLARS, WHICH 

WILL MAKE THE TOTAL COST TO RELOCATE THE ROTA SQUADRON APPROXIMATELY 

100 MILLION DOLLARS, INCLUDING FAMILY HOUSING AND ACCESS ROADS.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

IN THIS YEAR’S BUDGET, 86.6 MILLION DOLLARS IS REQUESTED FOR AIR

AND WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT. THE NAVY HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN SANITARY AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE SEWERAGE SYSTEMS, SHIP WASTEWATER

COLLECTION ASHORE, MUNICIPAL SEWER CONNECTIONS, AIR EMISSION IMPROVE-
348

MENT S, AND S O L ID WASTE DIS PO SA L SYST EM S WITH THE 50 6 M IL LI O N DOL LAR S OF 

AU THORITY AND AP PR OP RI AT IO NS PR OV IDED TO DA TE ; SIN C E 1 9 6 8 . WE HAVE

BROUGHT 98 PER CEN T OF OUR A IR EM IS SI ON S IN TO CO M PL IA NC E, CONVERTED 50 

PER CEN T OF OUR S H IP S ’ SA NI TA RY DISC HA RG E SYSTE MS TO AC CE PT AB LE STAN DA RD S, 

EL IM IN AT ED A LL OPEN DUM PS, AND IN CR EA SE D OUR SHORE ES TA BLI SH M EN T' S

SA NI TA RY WASTE SECON DARY TREATMENT FROM 62 PER CEN T TO OVE R 90 PE RC EN T.

THE F IS C A L YE AR 19 80 PO LLU TIO N ABATEMEN T REQUE ST IN CL UD ES 31 M IL LI O N 

DOL LAR S FOR O IL S P IL L PREVEN TIO N F A C I L I T I E S , 24 M IL LI O N DO LLA RS FOR

SA NI TA RY SEWERAGE SYS TEM S AND 19 M IL LI O N DOL LAR S FOR IN D U ST R IA L WASTE

TREATMEN T AND CO LL EC TI O N, PL US 12 M IL LI O N DOL LAR S FO R OTHER CO M PL IA NC EOR IEN TE D P R O JE C T S . TH IS AMOUNTS TO GRE ATE R THAN 15 PER CEN T OF THE N A V Y'S 

TO TAL M IL IT ARY CON STR UCT ION RE QU ES T. I T I S ES TIM AT ED THAT 40 M IL LI O N 

DO LLAR S ANN UAL LY OVE R THE NEXT FOUR YEA RS W ILL BE RE QU IR ED TO ALLOW THE 

NAVY TO COMPLY WITH E X IS T IN G LAW S. ARE AS WHICH W IL L R ECE IV E AT TENT ION AS

ENVIRON MEN TAL PROT ECTIO N AGEN CY AND ST AT E RE GU LATIO NS ARE FIN A L IZ E D 

IN CL UD E PRET REATM ENT OF TO XI C W AS TE S, HAZARDOUS WASTE D IS PO SA L F A C IL IT IE S , 

SO LI D WASTE RE CY CL IN G F A C IL IT IE S AND IN DU ST RIA L WASTE PRE TRE ATME NT .

ENER GY CO NS ER VA TIO N

THE ENER GY CON SER VAT ION INV EST MENT PROGRAM PR OV ID ES FOR R E F IT

OF E X IS T IN G F A C IL IT IE S TO : (1 ) M IN IM IZ E ENER GY L O S S ; (2 ) US E THE 

LA TE ST ENE RGY SA VI NG MA TER IAL S AND EQ UIPM EN T; AND (3 ) IMP ROV E THE

E F F IC IE N C Y OF E X IS T IN G ENERGY SY ST EM S. THE SE LE CT ED PR OJE CT S IN TH IS

YE A R ’ S PROGRAM W IL L SAV E THE MOST ENER GY FOR THE DO LLA RS IN V EST ED . THE

FUND ING OF TH ESE PR OJ EC TS W IL L CO NT RIB UT E TO ME ETI NG THE GOA L OF A 20

PER CEN T RE DU CT ION IN ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF E X IS T IN G F A C IL IT IE S BY 1 9 8 5 ,

WHEN COMPARED WITH THE 19 75 BA SE L IN E . WHEN THE F A C IL IT IE S IMPRO VEMENTS

AU TH OR IZE D THROUGH F IS C A L YE AR 19 79 ARE CO MP LET ED , IT I S ESTIM AT ED THAT

THE REA FTE R TH ESE IMPROVEMENTS W IL L SAV E THE EQUIV ALENT OF 1 ,6 0 0 ,0 0 0

BA RR ELS OF FU EL O IL ANNU ALL Y. THE 4 6 .7 M IL LI O N DOLLAR S REQ UES TED TH IS 

YE AR W IL L SAVE THE EQUIV ALENT OF AP PR OXIMA TELY 300 THOUSAND BAR REL S OF
349

FU EL O IL ANN UALLY . T H IS INVESTMENT W IL L RE SU LT IN AN ANNUAL CO ST AVOIDANC E 

OF APPRO XIM ATELY 7 . 8 M IL LI ON DOLLARS AND W IL L AM OR TIZ E THE INV ESTM EN T IN

S IX YE AR S.

OC CU PATION AL SAFET Y AND HEALTH CONST RUCTION 

WE ARE RE QU ES TI NG 6 . 0 M IL LI ON DOLLARS FOR CONTINUA TIO N OF TH E NAVAL 

OC CU PATION AL SA FETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM. PR EL IM IN AR Y SURVEYS HAVE 

ID E N T IF IE D MANY MORE D E F IC IE N C IE S IN OC CU PATIO NA L SAFET Y AND HEALTH

STA ND ARDS . TH ES E SURVEY S ARE CO NT IN UING TO RE FI N E AND VA LIDA TE S P E C IF IC 

RE QU IR EM EN TS . I T I S ESTIMA TE D THAT AT LE AS T 1 5 M IL Lr ON DOLLA RS PER YEAR 

IN M IL IT ARY CONSTRUCTIO N AND ANOTHER 1 0 M IL LIO N DOLLA RS IN OP ER AT IO NS

AND MAINTENAN CE AND OTH ER PROCUREMENT W IL L BE RE QU IRED TO COR RECT THE

D E F IC IE N C IE S THAT WE ARE NOW ID E N T IF Y IN G OVER THE NEXT F IV E YE ARS .

MIN OR CONSTRUCTIO N

OF THE 3 3 . 4 M IL LI ON DOLLA RS REQUESTED FOR MIN OR CO NS TR UC TI ON , 2 0 

M IL LI ON DOLLARS I S FOR U N ID E N T IF IE D RE QU IR EM EN TS , T IT L E D EX IG EN T CO NS TR UC TION ,

AND 1 3 . 4 M IL LIO N DOLLARS I S FO R ID E N T IF IE D REQUIRE MENTS T IT LED S P E C IF IE D

LO CA TION S MINO R CO NS TR UC TION . THE S P E C IF IE D LO CA TION S PR OJE CT S RE PR ES EN T 

2 5 PE RC EN T OF THE TOT AL NUMBER OF P R O JE C T S , BUT ONLY 2 PERC EN T OF THE 

DOLLAR RE QU ES T FOR PR OJE CT CO NS TR UC TION .

ABOUT 8 0 PERC EN T OF THE PROJE CT DOLLARS FOR S P E C IF IE D LO CA TION S

MINO R CO NSTR UC TION ARE DEVOTED TO ENERGY CO NS ER VA TION , PO LL UT IO N ABA TEME NT, AND OC CU PATIO NA L SAFETY AND HE AL TH . A TA BL E, IN THE SUPPL EM ENT TO 

MY STAT EM EN T, PR OV ID ES MORE DETA IL ON THE TY PE S OF PR OJE CT S INC LU DE D IN

S P E C IF IE D LO CA TION S MIN OR CO NS TR UC TION .

MA JOR COMMANDS PROGRAM

IN D IS C U SSIN G THE PROGRAMS OF THE MAJOR COMMANDS, I W IL L ADDRESS

SE LE CT ED MAJOR PR O JE C T S. IN AD DIT IO N TO THE REGULAR PR O JE C T S, THE

AMOUNT FO R MINO R CONSTRUCTIO N FOR EACH MAJ OR COMMAND AS WELL AS THE

AMOUNTS FOR PO LL UT IO N ABATEMENT AND ENERGY PR OJE CTS W IL L BE ID E N T IF IE D .

O F FIC E OF NAVAL RESEARCH

FO R THE O F F IC E OF NAVAL RE SE AR CH , IN S ID E THE UN ITED ST A T E S, WE ARE

4 1 - 6 3 8 0 - 7 9 - 2 3
350

RE QU ES TI NG 5 7 0 THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR TWO MIN OR CONST RUCTION PR OJE CT S AT 

THE NAVAL RES EAR CH LABORA TORY, WASHINGTON, D . C .

C H IE F OF NAVAL OP ER AT IO NS

FOR THOSE IN ST ALL ATI ONS UNDER THE DIR ECT MANAGEMENT CONTROL

OF TH E C H IE F OF NAVAL OPERATI ONS, THE RE QU ES T I S 4 0 . 2 M IL LI ON DOLLA RS

FOR MA JOR CO NS TR UC TION . INCLUD ED IN T H IS TOTAL ARE 1 4 . 3 M IL LI ON

DOLLARS FOR TR ID EN T AND 2 0 . 3 M IL LIO N DOLLARS FOR THE NAVAL SUBMARINE

SU PPOR T B A SE, KI NGS BA Y, GE ORG IA . ANOTHER SIG N IF IC A N T PR OJE CT IS A

5 . 5 M IL LI O N DOLLAR PR OJE CT FOR DREDG ING OF THE THAMES RIV ER TO PE RM IT

SA FE TR ANSI T OF TR ID EN T SUB MARIN ES TO SE A .

COMMANDER IN C H IE F , ATL ANTI C FL EE T

THE REQU EST FOR THE COMMANDER IN C H IE F , AT LA NT IC FL EET I S

6 8 . 5 M IL LI ON DOLLARS FOR MAJOR CO NS TR UC TION . OF TH IS TO TA L, 1 9 . 8 

M IL LI ON DOLLARS I S FOR CONST RUC TIO N OU TS ID E THE UN ITED ST A TES,

2 . 7 M IL LIO N DOLLARS I S FOR ENERGY CO NS ER VA TION , AND 4 . 2 M IL LI ON DOLLARS 

I S FOR PO LL UT IO N ABATEMENT. ALS O REQUESTED I S 1 . 9 M IL LIO N DOLLARS

FOR MIN OR CO NS TR UC TION .

THE HIG HLI GHTS OF TH IS 6 8 M IL LI O N DOLLAR REQUEST INCL UD E 1 0 . 3 

M IL LI ON DOLLARS FOR THE NAVAL STA TIO N , MAY POR T, FL ORID A, FOR A MACHINE

SHOP TO PR OVID E F A C IL IT IE S FO R SHORE IN TE RM ED IA TE MAINTENANCE SU PP ORT.

THE INTE RM ED IA TE LE VE L CAPA BIL IT Y AT MAYPORT NEE DS TO BE INCR EA SE D

BEC AUS E OF IN CR EA SI NG S H IP COM PLEXIT Y AND NEW S H IP S COMING INTO THE

FL E E T . HOMEPORTED S H IP S IN THE MAYPORT AREA W IL L GROW IN NUMBER FROM

2 3 TODAY TO OVER 4 0 BY FIS C A L YEA R 1 9 8 6 . SHO RE IN TE RM ED IA TE MAINTENANCE A C T IV IT IE S SUPPL EMENT TE NDE RS , EXPAND S H IP MAINTENANCE CA PA BIL IT Y

AND IMPROV E RE TE NT IO N OF SK IL L E D , EX PE RI EN CE D PE TT Y O FFIC ERS THROUGH

SE A AND SHORE RO TA TI ON. TH IS MACHINE SHO P PR OJE CT W IL L SU PPOR T THE

MAINTENAN CE OF S H IP S AT THE IN TE RM ED IA TE LE V EL.

P IE R EX TE NS IO NS IN THE AMOUNT OF 5 . 8 M IL LI ON DOLLARS AND AN

EN LIS TED BARRACKS AT AN EST IMAT ED COST OF 7 . 8 M IL LI ON DOLLARS ARE THE

S IG N IF IC A N T PR OJE CTS REQ UESTED FOR THE NAVAL SUBMAR INE BA SE , NEW LONDON
351

CONN ECTICU T. THE P IE R EXT ENS ION WILL PRO VID E IMPROVEM ENTS TO THREE

P IE R S MAKING THEM ADEQUATE FOR BERTHING FI V E NUCLE AR-PO WERED ATTACK

SUBM ARIN ES ( S S N 'S ) . THE BARRACKS PR OJ EC T WI LL PROV IDE ADEQUATE SPA CES

FOR 300 E - l THROUGH E -4 AND 300 E -5 THROUGH E -6 PE RS ON NE L, AND RE LI EV E

SE VERE OVERCROWDING.

FOR THE NAVAL ST AT IO N, NORFOLK , V IR G IN IA , A 5 .5 M IL LI ON DOLLAR

PR OJ EC T WI LL PRO VID E A PERMANENT BERTH FOR THE AF DL -4 7 FLO AT ING DRYDOCK.

TH IS DRYDOCK WI LL BE USED TO SUPPORT RE PA IRS AND MAINT ENANC E OF 26

NUCLEA R SU BM AR INES, AND 15 OTHER NORF OLK- BASE D S H IP S .

FOR THE COMMANDER IN C H IE F , AT LAN TIC FL EET , 1 9 .8 M IL LI ON DOLLAR S

I S REQUE STED OU TSIDE THE UNIT ED ST AT ES . AT THE NAVA L ST ATI O N, KEF LA VI K,

IC EL AN D , 1 6 .2 M ILLION DOLLAR S I S REQUEST ED FOR A GEOTHERMAL HEA TIN G

PRO JE CT , TO FUND THE CON NECT ION CHARGE TO THE LO CAL RE GIO NA L HEA TING

CORPORATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF OF F- BA SE WELL CA PA CI TY AND IN ST AL ­

LA TION OF HEA TING MAINS O N -B AS E. IN IT IA L HOOK-UPS OF A PORT ION OF THE

BA SE BU ILDI NG S ARE A PART OF TH IS PR OJ EC T.

COMMANDER IN C H IE F , P A C IF IC FLE ET

THE REQUEST FOR THE COMMANDER IN C H IE F , P A C IF IC FL EE T IS

5 2 .3 M IL LI ON DO LLA RS, OF WHICH 3 .9 MI LL IO N DOLLARS I S FOR CONSTRUCTION

OU TS IDE THE UNI TED ST A TE S, 3 M IL LI ON DOLLARS IS FOR ENERGY CONSER VAT IO N , AND 1 2 .5 M IL LI ON DOLLARS I S FOR POLLUTION ABATE MENT. ALSO

REQU ESTED IS 750 THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR MINOR CONST RUCTI ON.

OF TH IS TO TA L, THE MAJOR PR OJ EC TS INC LUD E 8 .3 M IL LI ON DOLLARS AT

THE NAV AL ST AT IO N, ADAK , AL AS KA , TO MODERNIZE EN LIST ED BARRACKS FOR

184 PER SONNEL; 4 .4 MI LL IO N DOLLARS FOR MODE RNIZI NG A MARIN E BARRACKS

FOR 136 PE RS ON NE L, AND 3 .2 M IL LION DOLLARS FOR A DI NI NG FA C IL IT Y

MODERNIZ ATION PR OJ EC T.

TWO TR AINI NG PR OJEC TS REQUESTED FOR THE NAVAL A IR ST AT IO N, LEMOO RE,

CA LIF O R N IA , WI LL PRO VIDE MAINTENANCE AND OPER ATION AL TR AINI NG F A C IL IT IE S

FOR THE F -1 8 AIRC RA FT TO BE INTRODUCE D TO TH IS STA TIO N IN MARCH 19 81 .

THE SE PR OJ EC TS TOTAL 6 .3 M IL LI ON DOLLA RS.
352

AT THE NAVAL STATIO N, SAN DIEGO, CALIF ORNI A, 9.2 M ILLION DOLLAR S

WI LL PROVI DE UTILIT IES ON PIE R 8 FOR CO LD IRON BERTHING.

A NEW STEAM PLANT C OSTING 3.2 MI LLION DOLLARS FOR THE NAVAL

SUBMAR INE SUPP ORT FACILITY, SAN DIEGO, CALIF ORNI A, WILL PROVIDE

SUFFIC IEN T STEAM CA PAB ILI TY TO PE RMI T SIX HOME POR TED SHIPS TO GO COLD

IRON.

FOR CO MMA NDE R IN CHIEF, PACIFI C FLEET, OUT SID E THE UNITED

STATES, 3.9 MILLION D OLLARS IS RE QUE STE D T O PROV IDE A SANITARY

SEWAGE COLLEC TIO N A ND TREATMENT FACIL ITY FOR THE NAVAL AIR FACILITY,

MIDWAY ISLAND.

CHI EF OF NAV AL EDUCATION A ND TRA INI NG

FOR THE CHI EF OF NAV AL EDUCATION AND TR AININ G, WE ARE R EQUE STING 18.4 MIL LIO N DOLLARS. OF THIS TOTAL, 1.3 MIL LIO N DOLLARS IS FOR

POLLUT ION AB ATEME NT AN D 2 .8 M ILLION DOLLA RS IS FOR ENERGY CONS ERVAT ION.

THE MINOR CONSTRUC TIO N REQUESTED IS 1.7 M ILL ION DOLLARS.

THE SIGNI FIC ANT PROJEC TS ARE 6 MI LLI ON DOLLARS FOR A T RAIN ER

FACILITY TO HOU SE T WO GAS TURBIN E SHIP PRO PUL SIO N U NITS AT THE NAVA L

TRAINI NG CENTER, GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS; AND AN 8.3 MIL LIO N DOLLAR

APP LIED IN STRUCT ION BUI LDI NG FOR PR OPU LSI ON AN D WEAPONS TRAININ G

AT T HE FLEET T RAINI NG CENTER, SAN DIEGO, CALIF ORNIA .

BUREA U O F MEDI CIN E AN D SURGERY

THE REQ UES T FOR THE BUREAU OF ME DIC INE AND SURGER Y IS 8.0 M ILLION

DOLLARS FOR MA JOR CONSTRUCTION. THE PROJE CTS INCL UDE 2.1 M ILLION

DOLLARS FOR ENER GY CONSERVAT ION ALTER ATI ONS TO TH E N AVA L H OSPITAL,

CAMP PENDLETON, CALI FORNIA; AND 5.9 MIL LIO N DOLL ARS FOR A NEW

MEDICAL CLIN IC TO PROV IDE PRIMAR Y CARE AN D INDU STR IAL HEA LTH FACILITIE S

AT TH E N AVAL STATION, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA.

CHIEF OF N AVA L MATE RIA L

THE R EQU EST FOR THE C HIEF OF NA VAL MAT ERIAL IS 162.5 MILLION 

DOLLARS TO PROVI DE FACILITIE S FOR LO GIS TIC SU PPO RT OF THE FLEET.

OF THIS AMOUNT. 47.7 MILL ION DOLLAR S IS FOR P OLL UTI ON ABATEM ENT
353

AND 3 2 . 6 M IL LI O N DOLLARS I S FOR ENERGY CO NS ER VA TION . ALSO REQUEST ED

I S 6 . 6 M IL LI O N DOLLARS FOR MINOR CO NS TR UC TION .

FOR SH IPYA RD MOD ER NIZA TION , 31 M IL LI O N DOLLARS I S REQUESTED FOR 

EI GHT PR OJE CTS AT S IX SH IP YARDS. A B R IE F DIS C U SS IO N OF TH ES E PR OJ EC TS

FOLLOW S:

AT THE PU GE T SOUND NAVAL SH IPYARD, BREMER TON , WA SHING TON, 1 . 6 

M IL LI O N DOLLARS I S REQ UESTED FOR DRE DGING AND INCR EA SE D EL ECT RI CA L

CA PA CITY FOR AC OU ST IC TE ST S FOR S S N -6 8 8 CLASS SU BM AR INES.

AT THE LONG BEACH NAVAL SH IPYAR D, LONG BE AC H, CA LIF O R N IA ,

1 . 8 M IL LIO N DOLLARS W IL L PR OV ID E F IR E PR OT EC TION IMPROV EMENTS TO THREE LAR GE IN DUST RIA L B U IL D IN G S.

AT TH E MARE ISLA ND NAVAL SH IPYARD, VA LLEJO , CA LIF O R N IA ,

6 M IL LIO N DOLLARS I S REQ UESTED FOR A WATERFRONT WORK F A C IL IT Y .

FOR THE PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SH IP YARD, K IT T E R Y , M AIN E, THE PR OJE CTS

REQUESTED ARE 2 . 5 M IL LI ON DOLLARS FO R BE RT HI NG WHARF RE ST OR AT ION TO 

S T A B IL IZ E TH E GR AN IT E BLOCK QUAYWALL OF BERTH 6 , AND 1 . 9 M IL LIO N

DOLLARS FOR DRYDOCK RE PA IR S TO PE RM IT SA FE U T IL IZ A T IO N OF THE

DRYDOCK FOR REPA IR S TO TH E CURRENT CL AS SE S OF SU BM AR INES.

AT THE NORFO LK NAVAL SH IP Y ARD, PORTSMO UTH , V IR G IN IA , 1 0 M IL LIO N 

DOLLARS I S RE QU ESTE D TO PR OV ID E SPAC E FO R CO NS OL IDAT ING EN GI NE ER IN G 

AND MANAGEMENT PE RS ON NE L, ALLE VIA TI NG OVERCROWD ING, AND TO PR OV ID E

FOR AN IN CR EA SE OF APPRO XIM ATELY 4 5 PE RS ON NE L.

AT TH E PE AR L HARBOR NAVAL SH IP Y ARD, PE AR L HARBO R, H A W A II, 7 . 3

M IL LIO N DOLLARS I S REQUEST ED TO CO NS OL IDAT E AND IMP ROV E THE RI GG ER S

AND LABORERS SH O P, AND THE TEMPORARY SE RVIC ES SH OP.

FO R TH E NAVAL A IR REWORK F A C IL IT IE S , MO DE RN IZAT IONS TO TA LL IN G

6 . 7 M IL LIO N DOLLARS W IL L BE AC CO MP LIS HE D ON TWO JE T EN GI NE TE ST C E LLS;

ONE EAC H AT ALAMEDA AND NORTH IS LA N D , CA LIF O R N IA . A NEW EXHA UST

SY ST EM , AUGMENTOR AND STACK W IL L BE IN ST ALL ED ON THE CE LL S TO REDU CE

V IS IB L E E M IS S IO N S , AND N O IS E L E V ELS. THE NEW SYS TEM S RE PLAC E WORN OUT
354

AM D DET ERI ORATING COMPONENTS THA T LIM IT USE FUL NES S OF E XIS TIN G CELLS

AND CAU SE EXCES SIV E MAINTENAN CE COSTS.

AT TH E N AVAL WEAPONS STATIONS, THE SIGNIF ICA NT PROJ ECTS ARE A

TOR PED O SHOP FO R MA RK 46 TORPEDOES AND ANTI -SU BMA RIN E ROCKET MA INT ENA NCE

OPERATI ONS AT CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA; ENL IST ED B ARRA CKS A ND DINI NG

FAC ILI TY FOR 238 PER SON NEL AT CONCORD, CALI FORNI A; AND PI ER IM PRO VEMEN TS AND U TIL ITI ES AT EARLE, NEW JERSEY.

FOR THE POLARIS MISS ILE F ACIL ITY AT LANT IC, CHARL ESTON , SOU TH

CAROLINA, 7.5 M ILLION DOLLARS IS R EQU EST ED FO R A RADIOG RAP HIC

INS PECTION BUILDING, AN INERT S TOR AGE BUIL DIN G AND MAG AZI NES R EQUIR ED

TO SUPPOR T DEPLOYM ENT OF THE TR IDE NT I M ISS ILE ON F LEE T B ALLIS TIC

MIS SIL E SUBMARINES.

OTHER SIGNIFICA NT PROJECTS OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL M ATE RIA L AR E

AN OCE AN SUR VEI LLA NCE FACILITY IN THE AMO UNT O F 8.8 MILL ION DOLLARS

AT THE N AVAL OCE AN SYSTEMS CENTER, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, AND AN

AUT OMATED WAR EHOUSE FACILI TY AT 9.1 M ILL ION D OLLA RS FOR THE NAVAL

SUPPLY CENTER, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNI A. THE OCE AN SURVEILL ANCE PROJ ECT

PROVIDES A FACILITY TO INVESTIGAT E SENSORS, COR RELA TE AND A NALYZE

MULTI-S OUR CE DATA, AND EVALUATE P ERF ORM ANC E A ND VULNER ABIL ITY OF

OCEAN SURVEIL LAN CE SYSTEMS EXPERIMENT ALLY AN D BY SIMULATION. THE

AUT OMA TED WA REHOUSE PROJEC T WI LL PR OVI DE A FACILIT Y TO CONS OLIDA TE,

MECHANIZE, AND AU TOM ATE NAVY RECEIPT, STORAGE, AND ISSUE FUNCTIONS

FOR 54 PER CEN T OF THE PACIFIC FLEET UNITS HOM EPO RTE D AT SAN DIEGO.

THE A UTOMATED FACIL ITY WI LL RETURN ITS 9.1 MIL LIO N DOLLAR IN VESTMEN T

IN S IX YEARS.

NAV AL SECURITY GROUP COMMAND

FOR THE N AVAL SECURITY GROUP COMMAND, WE AR E REQU EST ING 6.5

MIL LIO N DOLLARS FOR MAJOR CO NSTRUCTIO N A ND 60 0 T HOU SAN D DOLLA RS FOR

MI NOR CONSTRUCTION. THE MAJ OR PROJE CTS A RE LOCAT ED A T THE NAV AL

SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY, ADAK, ALASKA, AN D WI LL PROVIDE AN EXPAN SION
355

TO TH E OPERATIONS BUI LDING TO HOUSE OPERAT IONS W HICH A RE CLASS IFIE D,

AS WE LL AS MODERNI ZAT ION OF AN ENLISTE D BARRACKS FOR 141 PERSO NNEL .

OUTSIDE TH E UNITED STATES

IN ADDI TIO N TO THOSE INSTALLATIONS LOC ATE D O UTS IDE TH E CONT INE NTA L

UNITE D STATES, WHI CH I HAVE ALREADY COVERED, WE ARE ALSO REQU EST ING

THE FOLLOWING:

COM MAN DER IN CHIEF, NAV AL FORCES EUROPE

FO R THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, NAVAL FORCE S EUROPE, 16.3 MI LLI ON 

DOL LAR S IS REQ UES TED F OR MAJ OR CONSTRUCTIO N. THE S IGNI FIC ANT PROJECTS

ARE 6.6 MIL LIO N DOLLARS TO PROV IDE COM MERCIAL POWER T O T HE NAV AL

STATION, ROTA, SPAIN, AND 9.7 MIL LIO N DOLLA RS FOR THE N AVAL A IR 

FACILITY, SIGONELLA, SICILY, ITALY, FOR A GEN ERA L WAREHO USE , 

ADM INI STRATION BUI LDI NG AN D DATA CENTER, AI R P ASSENGE R TE RMI NAL

EXPA NSION, AN D AIRC RAF T MAI NTENA NCE HAN GAR ADDITION.

NAVAL TELE COM MUN ICA TIO NS COMMAND

FOR THE NAV AL TELEC OMM UNICATI ONS COMMAND, 2.8 MIL LIO N DOLLA RS IS

REQUESTED FOR TWO PROJEC TS. AT T HE NA VAL CO MMU NIC ATI ON STATION H AROLD E

HOLT, EXMOUTH, AUS TRAL IA, 2.5 MI LLION DOLLARS WIL L CON STR UCT A SATE LLIT E 

COMMUNICA TIO NS GROUP TERMINAL TO PRO VID E AD EQU ATE S ATE LLI TE COMM UNIC ATIO NS F OR THE FLE ET A ND DE FENSE SATELL ITE SYSTEMS.

SUMMAR Y

IN SUMMARY, THE PROJ ECT S REQUEST ED W ILL P ROVIDE FAC ILITIES FOR

NEW MI SSIONS, CUR REN T MI SSIONS, AN D MODERN IZA TIO N OF THE SHORE

ESTABLISHMENT. WE A PPRECIA TE THE PAST SUPP ORT O F T HE COMMITTEE ,

AND EARNE STL Y SOL ICIT YO UR SU PPO RT FOR THIS YE AR ’S PROGRAM.

WE W IL L BE PLE ASED TO AN SWER THE COM MITTEE’S QUESTI ONS.

TH ANK YOU,
356

FISCAL YEAR 1980 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROCRAM 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY 

BY MAJOR COMMAND 

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

Major Command

Z of Minor Poll u- Energy

Budget Pro- Con str- ti on Con serRequest gram uct lo n Abate. va tIon OSHA

In si de the Un ited S ta te s

Marine Corps $ 68,4 80 12. 4 ( 900) (12 ,35 0) ( 1,980) ( 150) O ff ic e of Naval Re search 0 0 ( 570) ( 110) ( 0) ( 0) Chi ef of Naval Ope ra tio ns 40,150 7.3 ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) Commander in Chi ef , A tl an ti c Fle et 48.670 8.8 ( 1,8 80) ( 4,23 0) ( 2,720) ( 0) Commander In Chi ef , P acif ic Fl ee t 48,400 8.8 ( 600) ( 8,5 50) ( 3,000) ( 150) Naval Ed uca tion and Tra in in g 18,440 3.3 ( 1,670) ( 1,3 30) ( 2,820) ( 0) Bureau of Med icine and Surge ry 7,950 1.4 ( 0) ( 0) ( 2,0 50) ( 0) Chief of Naval M at er ia l 158,465 28. 7 ( 6,1 90) (45,3 30) (30 ,52 0) (5,47 0) Naval Sec uri ty Group Command 6,50 5 1.2 ( 600) ( '0) ( 21 ( 21

Sub to ta l $397,060 71. 9 (12,4 10) (71,9 00 ) (43 ,09 0) (5,,770)

Ou tside th e Un ited S ta te s

Marine Corps 11,7 00 2.1 ( 0) ( 7,400) ( 0) ( 0) Offic e of Naval Resea rch 30 ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) Commander in Chi ef , A tl an ti c Fle et 19,8 10 3.6 ( 210) ( 1,4 50) ( 1,510) ( 0) Commander in Chi ef , P a c if ic Fle et 

Commander in C hi ef , Nav al Forces

3,90 0 0.7 ( 150) ( 3,9 00) ( 0) ( 0)

Europe 16,3 00 3.0 ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) Ch ief of Naval M at er ia l 3,70 0 0.7 ( 350) ( 1,9 50) ( 2,1 00) ( 0) Naval Telecommunications Command 2,500 0.4 ( 270) ( 0) ( 0) ( 270) Naval Sec uri ty Group Command 1,400 0. 3 L 21 1 21 L 0) i 21

Sub to ta l $ 59,3 40 10.8 ( 980) (14 ,70 0) ( 3,6 10) ( 270)

TOTAL $456,400 82.7 (1 3 ,3 90 )i (8 6,6 00)- Z(46,7 00)J

"(6,04 0)

Minor Co ns tru ctio n 

Spe ci fied 

Exigent

Continuing A ut ho rity 

Plan ning and Design 

Access Roads

Tot al 4 New O bli gat io nal 

Autho rit y

33 ,390 lZ 6. 0

(13,3 90) ( 2.4) 

(20,0 00) ( 3.6) 

62,110 11. 3 

(57 ,54 9) (1 0. 4) 

( 4,5 61 ) ( 0. 9)

$551,900 100 .0

1/T ota l minor constr u cti o n , in cl ud in g minor p o ll u ti o n ab ate ment, energy 

co ns er va tio n and OSHA p ro je cts .

2/ Tota l p o ll u ti o n abatement and ene rgy co nse rv at io n in cl ud in g minor 

co nst ru ct io n p ro je c ts .

3 /O ccup ati on al Saf et y and He alt h Act p ro je c ts , in cl ud in g minor const ru ct io n. 

4/ Tota l fo r minor co nst ru cti on. Amounts ar e no t Inclu ded in Major Command

to ta ls . All minor co nst ru ct io n Is Inclu ded und er a com pos ite minor co nst ru ct io n 

p ro je c t.

( )Non-Add.
357

FISCAL YEAR 1980 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROCRAM 

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

BY FACILITIES CATEGORIES 

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

D es cr ip tion Navy

Marine

Corps To tal

X of 

Program

Minor

Co nstruct io n

Polluti o n

Abate.

Energy

Conservation OSHA

Ope ra tio na l 44,879 800 45,67 9 8.3 ( 1,9 50) ( 2.130) ( 0) (1, 370)

Tra ln ln g 23,050 0 23,05 0 4.2 ( 980) ( 0) ( 520) ( 0)

Mainte nance & 

Pr od uc tio n

50,100 15,50 0 65,600 11.9 ( 2,8 10) ( 1,6 00) ( 7,410) (1, 250)

RDT&E 8,8 30 0 8,83 0 1.6 ( 1,570) ( 0) ( 130) ( 980)

Supply 52,690 0 52,6 90 9.6 ( 430) (27 ,01 0) ( 2,720) ( 690)

Medical 11,250 0 11,25 0 2.0 ( 0) ( 0) ( 2,050) ( 0)

A dm in istra tiv e 24,510 5,5 00 30,010 5.4 ( 1,210) ( 0) ( 2,470) ( 450)

Housing & Community Facs. 

(BHouslng) 

(CSu pport)

42,69 6 35,1 00

( 32 ,0 36 )(35 ,1 00 )( 

( 10 ,6 60 )( 0)(

77,79 6 14.1

67 ,136 )(12 .2 ) 

10 ,660 )( 1.9)

( 630)

( 480)

( 150)

( 0)

( 0)

( 0)

( 2,200)

( 2,2 00) 

( 0)

( 150)

( 0)

( 150)

U tilitie s 129,695 1,800 131,495 23.8 ( 3,8 10) (55,8 60) (29,2 00) (1, 150)

Real Est at e 10,0 00 0 10,0 00 1.8 (_____0) ( 0) ( 0) ( 0)

TOTAL 397,700 58,700 456,400 82.7 (13, 3 9 0 ^ 8 6 ,6 0 0 )-(4 6 ,700)--(6 ,40 4)-

Minor Co ns tru e- 33,390*/ 6.0

cio n

Spec ifie d (13 ,39 0) ( 2. 4)

Exige nt (20 ,00 0) ( 3. 6)

Co nti nuing Auth. 62,1 10 11.3

Pl an ning and Design (57 ,54 9) (1 0. 5)

Access Roads ( 4, 56 1) ( 0.8 )

To tal and New O bllgat lo nal 551,900 100.0

A ut ho rit y

1/T ot al minor const ru cti on, Incl ud in g minor p o ll u ti o n ab atem en t, energy 

co nse rv at io n and OSHA p ro je c ts .

2/ Tot al p o ll u ti o n aba tem ent and energy co ns er va tion in cl ud in g minor cons tr u c ti o n p ro je c ts .

^/ O cc up at io na l Sa fe ty and Health Act p ro je c ts , in cl udin g minor const ru ct io n. 

4/T ota l fo r minor const ru ct io n. Amounts are not includ ed in Major Command

to ta ls . All minor co nst ru ct io n is includ ed under a com pos ite minor 

const ru ct io n p ro je c t.

( )Non-Add.

FISCAL YEAR 1980 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 

MINOR CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY

FOR APPROPRIATIONS

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

Pe rc en t of Minor C on st ru ct io n

Number of 

P ro je cts Amount

Number of 

P ro je c ts Amount

Energy Con se rv at io n 19 $3,9 50 36.5 29.5

P o ll u ti o n Abatem ent 14 3,390 26.9 25.3

0S3A 10 3,250 19.2 24.3

Regul ar __ 9 2,8 00 17.4 20.9

TOTAL 52 13,390 100.0 10 0.0

Tot al of App ro pr ia tion 

P ro je cts

205 551,900

Per ce nt of Tota l 25 .4 2.4
BIOGRA PHICAL SKETCH

Rear Admiral D ona ld G. Iselin was born In Racine, Wisconsin,

September 5, 1922, att end ed Marque tte Un iversity for two years, and

was gra duated fro m the U. S. Naval Aca dem y at the head of his clasa

In 1945. For the nex t yea r he served o n the light cruiser, USS

PROVIDENCE, Flagship of the Medi ter ran ean squadron. In 1946 he was

selected for the Civil Engineer Corps of the Navy and studied postgraduate w ork at Ren sse laer Pol ytechni c Institute, whe re he receiv ed

his bac helor's and mas ter's degrees in civil engi neeri ng.

He then served w ith the 104th Naval Con str uct ion B att ali on as

Pontoon C ompany C omm and er and was assi gne d wit h Seabee deta chme nts In

Alaska and Hawaii. He was technical adv iso r for N avy cons tructi on

projects d uri ng the ato m bomb testB at Enl wet ok in 1950-51. From 1951

to 1953 he was assigned to the Naval Air Mi ssi le Test Center at Point

Mugu, California, as Ass ist ant Officer in Cha rge of Const ructi on. After

a tour in the P ubl ic Wor ks Departmen t of the Pearl Harbor Nav al Shipyard,

he was selected by Adm iral R lckover to be the site Pr ojec t Off ice r for the

design and con str uct ion of the Shipping port At omi c Pow er Station near

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the nation's first large scale nu cle ar power

plant for p roducing electricity. He spent four years wit h Admi ral Rlckover,

from 1954 to 1958.

Rear A dmi ral Iselin was the winne r of the M ore ell M edal of the S ocie ty

of American Mil itary E ngin eers In 1958, for the m ost out sta ndi ng contribution to military engine eri ng b y a mem ber of the Civil Engi nee r Corps

for his w ork as Project Office r In the con str uct ion of the Shippin gpor t

Atomic P owe r Station.

Rear Admi ral Iselin served as Exe cuti ve Off ice r and Assist ant Director

of the Naval Civ il Engine eri ng Labora tor y a t Port Hueneme, California,

from 1958 to 1961.

He att end ed the Armed Forces Staff Coll ege in Norfolk, Virginia, In

1961 w ith subseq uen t ass ignment s in the Bur eau of Yar ds and Docks as

Director, Fleet and Mari ne Con struct ion Divi sio n a nd Assi stan t Chief for

Shore Electronics.

For his wo rk in d ire cti ng and m ana gin g the instal lat ion of the water

desalinat ion p lan t in G uantanamo Bay, Cuba, Rear A dmi ral Iselin was awarded

the N avy C ommenda tio n Medal.

From Augus t 1964 to November 1965, Rear Adm ira l Iselin was Deputy

Director of the Che sap eak e Division, Bur eau of Ya rds and Docks. He then

served as Dir ector of Programs and Comp tro lle r of the Naval Faci liti es

Engineering Command, Washington, D. C., from N ovem ber 1965 to Februar y 1967.

Fro m February to A ugu st 1967, Rear Adm ira l Iselin was assigned

as Special Asei ata nt to the O ffic er in Charge of Const ruct ion, Rep ubl ic

of Vietnam. During this period he dev elop ed and impl emen ted a ne w system

of con str uction mana gem ent under mili tar y host ile conditions , called "Level

of Effort." For his m ana gem ent ab ilit ies and l ead ersh ip he was awa rde d the

Legion of Merit an d the S tephen Dece tur Awa rd of the Nav y League. Fr om

Sep tember 1967 thr oug h Ap ril 1968, he w as Dep uty Of ficer in Charge of Construc tio n for Progr ams a nd Financial Ma nageme nt. For his lea ders hip and

managem ent o f a ll contractor -accom pli she d m ilita ry cons tructi on in Vie tnam ,

he w as awarde d a second Legi on of Merit.

Fro m Ju ne 1968 to September 1969, he w as Com mand er of the A tlant ic Fleet

Seabees, bas ed at Davisville, Rhode Island. He was awa rde d the Me rit ori ous

Service Me dal for hi s lea dership of the 8eabeee.
359

He was next assigned to the Naval Facilities Engineering Cotmaand aa the

Deputy Commander for Planning with additional duty aa Assistant for Civil

Engineering to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Logistics) fron September 1969 to May 1972, and was awarded a third Legion of Merit for his

leadership to the Command Advisory Board In developing NAVFAC management

Innovations.

From June 1972 to July 1973, Rear Admiral Iselin commanded the Pacific

Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command and Naval Construction

Battalions, 0. S. Pacific Fleet. Be earned a fourth Legion of Merit for

hla response to Fleet and Force requirements, and the close down of the

large Cost-Plus-Award-Fee construction contract in Vietnam.

Rear Admiral Iselin reported 7 September 1973 as the Vice Commander,

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington, D. C., and Deputy Chief

of Civil Engineers, and on 27 May 1977, he assumed duties as Commander, Naval

Facilities Engineering Command and Chief of Civil Engineers.

He is a registered professional engineer In the District of Columbia.

He Is a member of Sigma XI, a Director of the Society of American Military

Engineers, a Commissioner of the American Section, Permanent International

Association of Navigation Congreasea, and a Director of the Navy Mutual Aid

Aasoclatlon.

Rear Admiral Iselin Is married to the former Jacqueline Myers. They

have three children, Donna Iselin Broom, Michael, and Madeline.

His parents are Mr. and Mrs. Harry P. Iselin of Cortez, Florida.
360
361

M ar ine C or ps

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. E. C. CHEATHAM, U.S. MARINE CORPS, 

DIRECTOR, FACILITIES AND SERVICES DIVISION, OFFICE OF TIIE 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS

PREPARED STATEMENT

S enato r H ud dl es to n. G enera l, yo u m ay go ah ead w ith your 

pre se nta ti on.

G en e ra l C he at ha m. T hank yo u, M r. C hair m an .

It is m y ple as ure ag ai n to ap p e ar bef ore th e co m m it te e, an d I will

m ake a b ri e f su m m ar y o f my sta te m en t a n d pro vid e m y fu ll st ate m en t 

fo r th e re cord , sir.

p 'h e sta te m en t follo ws:]

(361)
362

Prepared Stateme nt of Br ig. Ge n . E. C. Che at ha m, Jr .

THE DIRECTOR, FACILITIES AND SERVICES DIVISION 

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 

(INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS)

U. S. MARINE CORPS

MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE, IT IS 

MY PLEASURE TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU ONCE MORE AND TO HAVE 

THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE MARINE CORPS PORTION OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR 1980 MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST. AS I TESTIFIED 

LAST YEAR, AND AS WE HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 

SEVERAL YEARS, THE MAJOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION EFFORT 

OF THE MARINE CORPS IS TO SUPPORT THE COMMANDANT'S

PROGRAM FOR IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE 

INDIVIDUAL MARINE. TO THIS END, OUR FISCAL YEAR 1980 

PROGRAM IS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE MODERNIZATION AND

CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING AND DINING FACILITIES FOR

UNACCOMPANIED ENLISTED PERSONNEL.

THE MARINE CORPS LOOKS ON THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE

LIVING FACILITIES FOR OUR UNACCOMPANIED MARINES AS A

MAJOR COMPONENT IN OUR EFFORT TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN

HIGH CALIBER PERSONNEL. WITH THE PAST SUPPORT OF THE 

CONGRESS, OUR PROGRAM FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING FOR 

SINGLE MARINES HAS PROCEEDED ON SCHEDULE AND LAST YEAR

I TESTIFIED THAT WITH THE FUNDING LEVELS PROJECTED AT 

THAT TIME, THE MARINE CORPS WOULD BE ABLE TO REDUCE 

ITS UNACCOMPANIED ENLISTED HOUSING DEFICIT TO MANAGEABLE LEVELS BY FISCAL YEAR 1984. NOW, HOWEVER, A NEW
363

PROFILE OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FUNDING PROJECTED TO 

BE AVAILABLE TO THE MARINE CORPS IN FISCAL YEARS 1981 - 

1984 WILL PRECLUDE ATTAINMENT OF THE 1984 GOAL AND 

WILL EFFECTIVELY PROLONG OUR PROGRAM 10 OR MORE YEARS.

THIS DRASTIC REDUCTION OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FUNDS

WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY WILL SEVERELY

HAMPER THE MARINE CORPS CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR THE 

NEXT FEW YEARS, BUT I HASTEN TO STATE THAT FROM THE 

SMALL PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTION FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN 

MADE AVAILABLE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, THE 

MARINE COPRS HAS RECEIVED, AS ALWAYS, ITS FAIR SHARE.

THE MARINE CORPS REQUEST FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980 TOTALS 

$59,200,000. THIS IS COMPLEMENTED BY A NAVY REQUEST 

FOR $21,880,000 IN SUPPORT OF POLLUTION ABATEMENT, 

ENERGY CONSERVATION AND SAFETY PROJECTS AT MARINE

CORPS SHORE ACTIVITIES.

OUR REQUEST CONTAINS PROJECTS FOR REPLACING OR 

MODERNIZING SINGLE ENLISTED QUARTERS AND DINING 

FACILITIES AT A COST OF $35,000,000. THESE PROJECTS 

WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE LIVING SPACES F.OR 2,803 SINGLE 

ENLISTED MARINES AND REPAIR 10 INADEQUATE DINING 

FACILITIES. NEARLY 60 PERCENT OF THE MARINE CORPS 

REQUEST FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION IS DIRECTED TOWARD 

THESE GOALS.

THE NEXT MOST SEVERE FACILITIES DEFICIENCY WITHIN 

THE MARINE CORPS IS THE LACK OF ADEQUATE MAINTENANCE 

SPACES TO SUPPORT THE FLEET MARINE FORCE. OUR FISCAL
364

YEAR 1980 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST COMMITS 26 PERCENT OF 

OUR PROGRAM, $15,500,000, TO CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE 

MAINTENANCE PROJECTS. THE REMAINING $8,600,000 

REQUESTED WILL PROVIDE A WATER DISTRIBUTION PROJECT,

A JOINT SERVICES COMPUTER SCIENCE SCHOOL AND AUTOMATED

DATA SERVICE FACILITY, AND TWO ARMORY PROJECTS.

MR. CHAIRMAN, GENTLEMEN, THAT SUMMARIZES THE MARINE 

CORPS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM REQUEST FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 1980 AND CONCLUDES MY STATEMENT. I WILL BE HAPPY 

TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
365

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

BRIGADIER GENERAL ERNEST C. CHEATHAM JR., USMC

Brigadier General Ernest Clifford Cheatham Jr., is Director,

Facilities and Services Division, Installations and Logistics

Department, Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington, D.C.

He was born July 27, 1929, in Long Beach, Calif. He graduated from 

St. Anthony High School there. He earned a B.S. degree in Political 

Science from Loyola University, Los Angeles, in 1952; and a master's 

degree in International Affairs from George Washington University 

in 1973.

General Cheatham was commissioned a Marine second lieutenant,

September 20, 1952. After completing The Basic School in February 

1953, he served as a platoon commander in Japan and Korea until his 

return to the U.S. in June 1954. During a brief period of inactive 

duty, he was a member of the Baltimore Colts professional football team.

In March 1955, he returned to active duty at the Marine Corps Recruit 

Depot, San Diego, as a company commander, lie was promoted to captain 

in April 1956. His subsequent assignments were as Executive Officer, 

Marine Barracks, Adak, Alaska; company commander with the 1st 

Reconnaissance Bn., and 3d Bn., 5th Marines; Inspector-Instructor,

44th Rifle Company, Boise, Idaho; and with the 12th Marine Corps 

District, San Francisco, Calif.

Promoted to major in July 1963, he was transferred to the Development 

Center, Quantico, Va. Later, he attended the Command and Staff College 

at Quantico, graduating as an Honor Student. In July 1967, he served 

consecutively as a battalion executive officer, regimental S-3, and 

battalion commanding officer with the 1st Marine Division in Vietnam, 

where he earned the Navy Cross and the Legion of Merit with Combat "V". 

He was promoted to lieutenant colonel in October 1967.

General Cheatham was then assigned to the Office of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff until October 1970, when he became Executive Officer, Marine 

Barracks, 8th and I Streets. He then attended the National War 

College. In 1975, he returned to Quantico, serving as Chief,

Operational Test and Evaluation Activity, Development Center. He was 

promoted to colonel in December 1973. In March 1976, General Cheatham 

was transferred to Okinawa where he was Commanding Officer, 4th 

Marines. He was advanced to brigadier general, June 1, 1977, when 

he assumed his current assignment.

General Cheatham's other personal decorations include the Meritorious 

Service Medal with gold star in lieu of a second award and the 

Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with gold star.

General Cheatham and his wife, the former Jo Ann Gunderson of Long 

Beach, Calif., have three children, Cynthia, Janet and Ernest C. III.

41 -6 38 0 - 7 9 - 2 4
366

LIVING FACILITIES

General Cheatham. The Marine Corps looks on the provision of 

adequate living facilities for our unaccompanied marines as a major 

component in our effort to recruit and retain high caliber personnel. 

With the past support of the Congress, our program for construction of 

housing for single marines has proceede d on schedule and last year I 

testified that with the funding levels projected at that time, the Marine 

Corps would be able to reduce its unaccomp anied enlisted housing 

deficit to manageable levels by fiscal year 1984.

Now, however, a new profile of military construction funding 

projected to be available to the Marine Corps in fiscal years 1981-84 

will preclude attainment of the 1984 goal and will effectively prolong 

our program 10 or more years.

ITie Marine Corps request for military construction appropriations for 

fiscal year 1980 totals $59,200,000. Our request contains projects for 

replacing or modernizing single enlisted quarters and dining facilities at 

a cost of $35 million. Nearly 60 percent of the Marine Corp s request 

for military construction is directed toward these goals.

ITie next most severe facilities deficiency within the Marine Corps is 

the lack of adequate maintenance spaces to support the fleet Marine 

force. Our fiscal year 1980 appropriations request commits 26 percent 

of our program, $15.5 million, to construction of five maintenance 

projects. The remaining $8.6 million requested will provide a water 

distribution project, a joi nt services computer science school and 

autom ated data service facility, and two armory projects.

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, that summarizes the Marine Corps 

military construction program request for fiscal year 1980. I will be 

happy to answer any questions from the committee.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you very much, General.

EFFECTS OF INFLATION

First, the matter of inflation is certainly of great concern. I think it 

will probably have some impact as to whether we will be able to meet 

minimum requirements.

Are you in a position at this time, Admiral, to com men t on the 

degree of this problem? That is, are bids averaging 5 percent or 10 

percent or some other level above estimates at the present time?

Admiral Iselin. Mr. Chairman, some projects are still coming in 

und er the fund ed authorization, but a lot are coming in over. In our 

program execution to date for 1979, overall our bids are exceeding the 

funded authorization by approximately 3 percent. Tha t mean s we have 

a hard 3 percent problem.

Really the entire 1979 program is affected because it is our objective 

to construct every project in there. Like this year, they were tough to 

come by when we needed them.

Senator Huddleston. Did you receive a reduction in the total money 

originally requested?
367

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. Coupled with inflation?

Admiral Iselin. Yes; construction cost increases really are nationwide. 

They really started on the west coast. We saw them there first. But they 

are throughout the country now.

I would say that the increased costs are not overpowering us at the 

mom ent because we are still getting some good bids. Bidding interest 

itself is picking up. Where we were getting three and four bids on a 

job, we’re now getting four and five bids on a typical job.

It is possible we may see some flattening out of construction cost 

increase later this year, but I know we’re going to have some rough 

spots on a few of our projects, and we will have to come over here for 

some reprogramings.

Senator Huddleston. Do you have a summary of those 

reprogramings anticipated at this point?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir. I would expect that 5 or 10 perc ent of o ur 

program will require reprograming. Tha t would equate to about 15 to 

30 projects. I have seven in hand right now that I know we’re going to 

have to come over with. We are about 50 percent of the way thro ugh 

the program.

Senator Huddleston. How many dollars?

Admiral Iselin. Th at would represent, as we project it, about $20 

million.

Senator Huddleston. Do you antic ipate any projects will have to be 

canceled in ord er to accommodate the increased costs?

Admiral Iselin. It is possible that we will have to cancel some 

projects in ord er to get the minimum required scope on higher priority 

projects.

Senator Huddleston. Based on your experience so far this year, do 

you believe the cost assumptions for 1980 will prove adequate?

Admiral Iselin. Mr. Chairman, ou r fiscal year 1980 estimates reflect 

the initial upturn in construction costs. We updated those as late as 

December, and if it doesn’t get worse than our projection, we should be 

in good shape for the 1980 program .

So I would feel more comfortable with the 1980 program than I do 

with the 1979 prog ram at the present time.

pollution abatement

Senator Huddleston. The Navy spen t a half billion dollars over the 

last 10 years on pollution abatement and you arc projecting ano ther $40 

million a year in the near future to bring the Navy into compliance 

with the law.

Are any Navy facilities being cited now as violating the law? Are 

others operating under waivers?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir. We have had notices of violations, most o f 

which were one-time violations, at 22 locations, and we are operating 

und er waivers at 37 locations.
368

Senator Huddleston. You refer to certain EPA and State standards 

which are now being finalized. Does it appear tha t changes in air and 

water quality standards could or will requ ire revision to any of your 

abatemen t projects that have already been accomplished?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir. In the water area, pretreatmen t standard s are 

now being developed that will require treatment of the waste water by 

Navy before we can discharge it into some municipal systems.

Senator Huddleston. You’ll have to install treatm ent systems?

Admiral Iselin. A pretreatment—n ot a complete treatment, but 

enough to bring it up to a level where they can take it and then pu t it 

through their systems. Many of these relate to industrial wastes that the 

municipalities are not capable of handling.

Senator Huddleston. Under oth er waste, solid waste, and industrial 

waste, I think you have $24 million in there?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. Is this don e principally by the Navy itself or do 

you contract out?

Admiral Iselin. The operatio n of those facilities will be done 

primarily by the Navy. Some may be contracted, but primarily it is an 

onbase operation.

Senator Huddleston, This includes your normal garbage disposal?

Admiral Iselin. No; garbage disposal, I would say, at all of our larger 

activities is now being handled by contract. We do have some sewage 

disposal plants operating by contract. We are looking at more, and as 

you may know, we are required to review—during every 3-year period 

we must review every one of our commercial and industrial-type 

applications to determin e whether they ough t to go contract, and we are 

moving in that direction.

I should add one poin t further with respect to what is coming in 

pollution abate me nt By 1984, we must use best available technology. 

We arc still getting definitions on th at

Senator Huddleston. We don’t know what that is yet, do we?

Admiral Iselin. No, sir. Maybe we would have to upgrade some of 

our secondary sewage treatment at that time.

Senator Huddleston. At any rate, tha t is going to continu e to be a 

substantial item in the budget?

Admiral Iselin. I think with out question.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Senator Huddleston. Your energy conservation projects, almost $47 

million for 1980, should amortize in 6 years, as you indicate, which 

seems to me to be a good investment. But have basewide energy 

consumption surveys been com pleted at all of the locations inclu ded in 

the budget?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir. Energy conservation surveys have been 

cond ucted by field activities at all of the locations included in the 

budg et. This program is conducted in phases, with the projects 

developed for the more obvious area of energy conservation in the 

initial survey. Then we have followup surveys later for some of the less 

obvious bu t also attractive areas of energy conservation poten tial.
369

Senator Huddleston. How much of the requ est is associated with 

energy monitorin g and control systems?

Admiral Iselin. Wc have five energy monitoring and control systems 

in this program at a total cost of $7.4 million.

Senator Huddleston. Are they based on a standard or uniform 

design?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir, the standard triservice specification is being 

used for the design.

Senator Huddleston. You are emphasizing, of course, projects which 

have fairly rapid amortization or payback. Are there any, however, 

which are proposed simply because they conserve significant energy, 

although the payback may be in many years?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir. The projects are prioritized on the basis of 

their annual energy savings to their investment costs, and this 

prioritizing assures that the maximum energy savings are achieved 

within a given funding level.

Senator Huddleston. And do you feel like the goal of a 20-percent 

reduction by 1985 is realistic and can be achieved?

Admiral Iselin. I think it is realistic. I think it is very difficult, bu t 

realistic. We are looking to achieve 12 percen t through the energy 

conservation inves tment program. We have an energy engineering 

program which does fine-tuning for the many equ ipm ents and systems 

tha t we have.

We look to pick up abo ut ano ther 4 perc ent, and we are looking at 

further belt-tightening to get that last 4 percent; 20 percent is not 

only—n ot only a 20-percen t cut from where you are, which is what it 

is, but we wou ld normally be going up 2 to 3 percen t a year, so we are 

really looking at about a 30-percent cut from the initial baseline.

Sena tor Huddleston. Have you developed a rough appro ximation of 

construction funds required over the next several years for energy 

conservation?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir. We are looking at abo ut $55 million a year. 

It is possible tha t could go up if we could identify more energy-saving 

projects.

ALASKAN INTERTIE

Sena tor Huddleston. Admiral, last year the committee directed tha t 

die Navy begin plan ning and design effort on a gas and electrical 

intertie between the Naval Research Laboratory and the town of 

Barrow, Alaska. It seem ed that the mutual benefits of such a proje ct in 

the Arctic environ men t at least warranted definitio n of the proje ct

The Dep artm ent has now responded tha t the project is too low in 

priority to be considered, and there would be no purp ose in initiating 

design.

It is a subject I know Senator Stevens is very much interested in, and 

probably will want to pursue further himself. He wasn’t able to be here 

today. But it is of i nterest to me that the Departme nt did not conside r 

specific committee direction to be of any consequence, appa rently, in 

setting its priorities. Of course we did n’t dire ct tha t the project be
370

accomplished. We directed that plan ning and design be done to serve 

as a basis for future consideration.

I don’t think we want to debate the merits of the specific case right 

now, but I will ask if the Navy would feel more comfortable if, in the 

future, the committee were to codify all of its direction in statute, rather 

than in its report?

Admiral Iselin. No, sir. We would hope that the committee would 

not find it necessary to resort to statute to provide us with guidance 

and direction.

In this particular project, I think we have a special situation in which, 

from a construction standpoint at the moment, there is not sufficient 

priority to warrant near-term programing. It places us in a dilemma, 

and that is that our design funds really do compete with our 

construction funds in our project process, as we pu t the bud get together 

to submit it to the Congress.

There is severe internal pressure in the Navy to get as much 

construction as we can for the too-limited numbers of dollars.

Senator Huddleston. I understand. How much do you think it would 

cost to have done the design work?

Admiral Iselin. We’re looking at abou t $450,000, sir, for that design. 

Certainly if Congress provided the design funds for any project, we 

would proce ed with it. We’re not taking that as an issue.

Senator Huddleston. You want them earmarked.

naval station, keflavik, geothermal heating

At the naval station in Keflavik, Iceland, you are requesting $16.2 

million for geothermal heating. Would you describe that project in 

greater detail?

Admiral Iselin. The Navy has been interested in making use of 

geothermal hot water to heat the naval station since the early 1960’s. 

This interest really has been predicated on the Icela nders’ success in 

using geothermal heating in another city abo ut 30 miles away called 

Reykjavik for the past 50 years.

Exploratory geothermal hot water wells were drilled near the naval 

station in Keflavik in the early 1970’s. They show ed promise o f enough 

capacity to heat the entire area around the naval station. There are 

about seven towns in the general area of the naval station.

The oil crisis in 1973 prompted the Icelanders to move into full 

developm ent of the wells tha t are relatively near our base. So they 

drilled wells. They constructed a heat exchange plant, and they have 

pu t distribution lines between these various cities. Three of the seven 

towns near the base are currently using geothermal heat from that new 

source. Their motivation, of course, is the same as ours. Oil is very 

expensive for them, particularly to be shipped in to that location.
371

There is also a mem orandum of unde rstan ding from 1974 between 

the United States and Iceland which commits the United States to join 

with the Icelanders in using geothermal sources that underlie the 

Keflavik area, subject to funding by Congress. The Icelandic Authority 

has also developed the wells and transmission pipelines I indicated. 

They have hook ed up several of the towns. We had been negotiating 

with that authority over the past 2 or 3 years and are abo ut ready to 

close our final agreem ent

Senator Huddleston. You would just buy from them -----

Admiral Iselin. We would buy from them with a significant capital 

cost. We actually plan ned the program, $32.9 million in MILCON , for 

fiscal ye ar 1980 and 1981, and we’re in for abou t $16 million this year.

Senator Huddleston. That will effect a substantial energy savings 

there?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir, it would. We have an economic analysis that 

shows tha t we will have a payback between 8 and 10 years using that 

geothermal heating.

Senator Huddleston. How much oil will that save?

Admiral Iselin. The saving in oil would be approximately 170,000 

barrels per year. The fiscal year 1980 fund ing will cover, as I said, 

paym ent of connection charges which really helps them to develop the 

wells. Th e capital investment is reflected, then, in the rates that we pay.

The second part is to do work inside of our own buildings to change 

radiators and controls, remove some boilers and to actually bring the 

line from the edge of the base inside.

Senator Huddleston. You’re confide nt that there will be a 

dependable supply?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir. We have experience in Keflavik, and the 

experience to date shows that this is a very, very stable long-term 

supply.

shore intermediate maintenance activities

Senator Huddleston. Last year, the Navy requ ested fund s for four 

shore intermediate maintenance activities. Projects in Mayport, Fla., and 

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, were not approved. The Mayport project has 

been requested again for fiscal 1980; Pearl Harbor has no t

Is the Navy now abandoning SIMA as a concept in deference to 

individual station needs on a case basis?

Admiral Iselin. No, sir. If I may, I would like to briefly review the 

Navy’s overall intermediate maintenance activities program and outline 

our intermediate level naval strategy.

The Navy does have a continuing requ irem ent to fulfill the 

operational commitments worldwide. Therefore we need to be able to 

sustain a state of readiness wherein the ships of the fleet can respo nd to 

known threats. To support these commitments, it is the Navy’s objective 

to maintain the highest possible percentage of operationally ready ships 

in good material condition, capable obviously of accomplishing their 

basic mission.
372

NEW SHIPS

As you know, sir, the Navy will be commissioning large numbers of 

new advanced ships in the early 1980’s. These arc ships already 

authorized by the Congress currently und er construction. 'fhis program 

will prepare now for grea ter levels of supp ort than we are providing 

today.

I have a chart with me. You can bring it up closer, Mr. Murphy. It 

shows, for example, the new frigates, FF G- 7, on the top line. We have 

already authorized 34, and we will have 41 authorized if this year’s 

program is approved. We are going for a grand total of 60 by 1985.

You can see also that those ships are starting to come into the fleet, 

one of them this year, five of them next year. By the time we would 

complete this project, we would be at 24 ships, just in the FFG- 7.

Jumping now to the destroyers, the 963’s, we already have 

authorization for 31 of those ships. We have 22 in commission this year, 

delivered, rather, and next year we’ll be up to 30. Those too are of 

particular interest in intermediate maintenance, although we will 

include many of our older ships as well.

The Navy ’s policy for all of its ships is designed to maintain an 

adeq uate material condition within the fleet, provide the maximum 

operational availability of the ships, and to perform the required 

maintenance at the lowest effective level we can.

LEVELS OF SHIP MAINTENANCE

The ship maintenance and modernization program will implement 

that policy. This is a balan ced program which requires the use of three 

levels of maintenance within the Navy. The lowest level is the 

organization level. That consists of the ship itself and the sailors who 

are manning that ship, and primarily in the engine room.

The next is the interm ediate level. That is the one we will be talking 

about, consisting of tenders, repair ships and the shore intermediate 

maintenance activities wherein cadres of sailors supplem ent and assist 

the shipboard personnel in accomplishing intermediate repair work.

Finally, the highest level is the depot level, consisting of Navy and 

commercial shipyards, which are civilian-manned.

In general, the workload is assigned to the specific levels on the basis 

of th e capabilities of each level, and the extent of work required. By a 

balanced program, we mean a balance in accomplishing maintenance 

tasks throughout the entire operating cycle of 10 years at all three 

levels.

Again, this balance is necessary to achieve high operational 

availability of the ships that we d o have.

MAJOR CHANGES IN THE FLEET

Since the end of fiscal 1971, major changes have occu rred in the 

fleet, all of which have had a significant impact on ship maintenance. 

Although the number of ships has decreased, the new ships entering the
373

fleet arc considerably more advanced than their earlier coun terparts. 

More specialized maintenance and repair efforts are required on these 

newer ships.

The deterioration of the material condition of the fleet in the early 

1970’s prompted the Navy to develop an overall ship maintenan ce 

strategy that was more effective. An exam ple of the Navy’s new 

maintenance concept is the maintena nce plan that the Navy has 

developed for the FF G -7 , the first line entry tha t we had on the chart. 

That ship is designed to be supported by modular chan ge-out of 

equipment. A rigorous program has been established to assure required 

accessibility within the ship for maintenance.

Standardization of ship equ ipm ent is being achieved thro ughout the 

entire class of ships during construction. Maintenanc e and repair 

availabilities at pierside are being planned at this time.

PROGRESSIVE OVERHAUL

The FF G-7 will be overhauled on what we call a progressive basis 

through a series of schedule d intermediate maintenance availabilities 

and scheduled restricted availabilities, the latter at our shipyards. It will 

undergo a major modern ization overhaul only every 10 years, rather 

than the traditional overhaul every 3 or 4 years. This will keep the ship 

on the line, available for operatio n a high er percentage of the time 

during its lifetime.

TTiis change in maintenance strategy means tha t more work will have 

to go to the intermediate main tenance activity level. It is for this reason 

that the Navy has initiated its shore intermediate maintenance program. 

To make this concept effective, we must provide SIMA’s, shore 

intermediate maintenance activities, at those home ports which sup port 

the concentration of Navy ships: San Diego, Mayport, Norfolk, Pearl 

Har bor and Charleston. That is where the ships are and that is where 

we must bring the inte rmediate maintenan ce.

o

PEARL HARBOR—SIMA

Senator Huddleston. Wh at are your plans at Pearl Harbor, then, if 

they ’re not in this budg et?

Admiral Iselin. At Pearl Harbor, sir-----

Senator Huddleston. I’m just anticipating a question from one of ou r 

colleagues.

Admiral Iselin. I have some data for you.

At Pearl we already have established on a bare bones basis an 

intermediate maintenance activity. We are using the existing facilities 

and eq uip men t Budgetary constraints preclude our inclusion of both 

May port and Pearl Ha rbo r in this budget, and in fact, we must program 

Norfolk next year because of a similar buildup in ships at Norfolk 

where we do not have the facilities to handle that buildup .

Therefore, because of our overall bud get constraints, fiscal year 1982 

would be the earliest we think tha t Pearl can be in the program
374

There is no question that there is a hard, valid need fo r the project at 

Pearl. In fact, the need is such tha t new equ ipm ent which is now being 

procured for Pearl Harbo r will be installed in old unsatisfactory 

facilities that we have got, bu t that is the best tiling that we can do.

If I could make one or two add itional comments on the SIM A 

portion o f this program, I would say that we are loo king to 

improvements o f each o f the Navy SIM A ’s that I mentioned. 'Hie 

facilities at the present activities vary sig nificantly in scope and 

con dition. Rehab ilita tion and upgrading of existing facilities is a major 

thrust of o ur program.

We do intend to request funds, as I indicated, in the future for Pearl 

Ha rbo r and for all of the SIM A locations.

MAYPORT—SIMA

Fo r this year, we seek approval at Maypo rt because, it is in the worst 

shape of all the SIM A’s. The present fac ility lacks the essential repair 

capabilities, such as the ab ility to repair the hydra ulic systems on both 

the FFG -7 and the 963. It is woefully inadequate. It consists o f an old 

commissary building, some trailers, and a few small scattered buildings.

The improvement o f these Mayport facilities is necessary to meet 

both the increase in ships’ schedules and to meet the requirements of 

those new ship classes. Between now and fiscal year 1983 there is an 

increase in hom epo rting in Mayport o f some 20 ships, from 23 to 42 

approximately. This docs include 14 F FG -7 ’s and 3 o f the DIZ>-963’s.

In summary I might say that we have a firm workload. We can 

assure the committee tha t ou r fac ility needs are real, and that the SIM A 

program is the cornerstone o f the Navy’s total maintenance program. 

This program is essential to the Navy’s ab ility to sup port the new ship 

maintenance strategics and the fleet of the 1980’s.

SHIP MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

This concludes my review of the SIM A program. I have a longer 

presentation with charts and numerical data that I wo uld be pleased to 

subm it for the record.

[The inform ation follows:]
MAINTENANCE OF U. S. NAVY SHIPS

This paper re vie w s th e Navy’ s o v e ra ll sh ip m ai nt en an ce p ro ­

gram and o u tlin e s th e Navy’ s in te rm e d ia te le v e l m ai nte nan ce s tra te g y

The Navy ha s a co n ti n u in g re quir em ent to f u l f i l l o p e ra tio n a l 

comm itm ents w orld-w id e and th e re fo re nee ds to be a b le to s u s ta in 

a s t a te o f re a d in e ss w her ei n th e f l e e t ca n re sp on d to known th r e a ts 

a g a in s t th e U nited S ta te s . To su p p o rt su ch co mmitm en ts, i t i s th e 

Navy’ s o b je c tiv e to m a in ta in th e h ig h e s t p o s s ib le p e rc en ta g e of 

o p e ra tio n a lly re ady sh ip s in good m a te ria l c o n d it io n and ca pable 

o f ac com plish in g t h e i r b a s ic m is si o n .

The Navy w ill be co m m ission in g la rg e numb ers of new, co mp lex 

sh ip s in th e e a rly 19 80 ’ s . Th ese a re sh ip s a lr e a d y a u th o riz e d and

un de r c o n s tr u c ti o n ------ we mu st p re p are now fo r g re a te r le v e ls of

su p p o rt th an we pro v id e to d ay . The fo ll o w in g ta b le show s th e b u il d 

up o f Navy sh ip s by f i s c a l y e a r:

NEW SHIPS

AS END OF FY:

75 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

FFG-7 AUTH 3 26 34 41 47 53 57 60 60

(F rig a te s ) IN COMM 0 1 1 6 14 24 31 39 45

SSN 688 AUTH 26 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

(S ub m ar in es ) IN COMM 0 7 10 13 18 22 28 33 34

DD 963 AUTH 30 30 31 31 31 31

(D estr o y ers ) IN COMM 0 16 22 30 30 31

CVN AUTH 4 4 4 4 4

(C a rrie rs (N )) IN COMM 1 3 3 3 4

CGN AUTH 9 9 9 9

(C ru is e rs (N )) IN COMM 5 8 8 9

LHA AUTH 5 5 5 5

(P hi b A ssau lt ) IN COMM 0 3 4 5

DDG 47 AUTH 0 1 1 3 5 7 10 12 12

(A eg is D e st. ) IN COMM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

The Navy’ s m ai nt en an ce p o li c y i s ba se d on a t o t a l sh ip m ai nte nan ce concept wh ich is desi gned to m ain ta in an ad eq u ate m a te ria l 

c o n d it io n w it h in th e f l e e t , p ro v id e th e maximum o p e ra ti o n a l a v a ila b i l i t y of f l e e t u n its and per fo rm th e re q u ir e d m ai nte nan ce a t th e 

lo w est e f f e c tiv e le v e l.

( I n s e r t C har t No. 1)
SHIP MAINTENANCE EQUATIO

N

(CH AR T N O. 1)

ORGANIZ ATION AL

SH IP MA INTE NA NC E = L E V E L

■

■

INTERM EDIATE

LEVEL

+

■

DEPOT

LEVEL

-------------------------------------j 

s

■ 

■

SH IP

■

■ • TEN DERS■■ • SHORE BASED IM AS■■■

1I! SHIPY AR DS■■■■

■

SAIL ORS

■

■■

; SAIL ORS

I

I

■

■

■

■■; CIV ILIANS

■■

■■

I

3
377

MAINTENANCE OF U. S. NAVY SHIPS (CONTINUED)

The Ship Maint enance and Modernization Program as shown on 

Chart No. 1, implements this policy. This is a bala nced p rogram 

whi ch requires a contribution from three levels wit hin the Navy 

wit h respec t to the maintenance and moderniz ation of its ships.

The lowest level is the organiz ational level cons isting of the 

ship itself and the sailors on board. At this level, it is well 

to remem ber that on board ship, unlike most other organizations, 

these sailor s are both the operators and mainta iners of their 

equipment. The next is the intermediate level consisting of our 

tenders, repair ships and shore intermediate m ain tenance act ivities w herein cadres of sailors supplement shipboard personnel 

in a ccomplishing intermediate level repair work. Finally, the 

highest level is the depot level consisting of Navy and commercial 

shipy ards which are civilian manned.

In general, the workload is assigned to these specific levels 

on the basis of the capabilities at each level and the extent 

of work required. By a balanced program we m ean a balance in 

accomplishing maintenance tasks throughout the e ntire operating 

cycle at all three levels. The purpose of a bala nced program is 

to achieve the highest poss ible operational avai lability wit hin 

available resources. The ability to allocate m aintenance tasks 

accu rately to the appropriate level in the past has been based on 

hist orical demand. However, wit h the introduction of new m ain tenance strategies the mai ntenance actions are b eing identified in 

advance and assigne d to appr opriate mainten ance levels through 

enginee ring a nalys is. As more and m ore ships are placed on 

revised mainten ance cycles, the definition of the workload at 

the depot and Intermediate levels will beco me more precise. The 

objecti ve is to identify the appropriate mainte nan ce level for 

the predict able mai ntenance workload, so that the necessary 

capa city can be accu rately identified.

(Insert Chart No. 2)
(C h a rt No. 2)

SHIP MAINTENANCE

PM REPAIR ALTERA TIONS

PREVENTIVE

MAI NT EN AN CE REPAIR ALTS

PREVENTIVE

MAI NT EN AN CE

REPAIR ALTS

3

00
379

MAINTENANCE OF U. S. NAVY SHIPS (CONTINUED)

Chart No. 2 shows the relative proportion of preventive 

maintenance, repairs and alterations allotted to the three levels 

of maintenance. The basic ma intenance polic y is to accomplish 

ship maintenance at the lowest practical and effec tive level.

A balanced mainten ance program will a chieve the opti mum return 

from all three levels of maintenance.

(Insert Chart No. 3)

381

MAINTENANCE OF U. S. NAVY SHIPS (CONTINUED)

Since the en d of Fiscal Year 1971, major changes have occurred 

in the fleet, all of wh ich have had a significant impact on ship 

maintenance. Alth ough the number of ships in the fleet has 

decreased, the new ships entering the fleet are considerably more 

advan ced than their earlier counterparts. There has been a consider able increa se in the average generating capacity, shaft 

horsepower and displacement of our ships in the fleet as indicated 

in Chart No. 3. There is little comparison between our older 

ships and tod ay’s gas turbine powered destroyers. Consequently, 

more specialized main tenance and repair efforts are required on 

the newer mor e complex ships.

Deterio ration of the mater ial condition of the fleet in the 

early seventies has been attributed to many factors. The high 

tempo of operations du rin g the Southeast Asia crisis, inability 

to budget for inflation, and sharply reduced force levels in the 

face of continuing o perational commitments. This latter factor 

accelerated the n ormal wear on systems and equipments, increased 

maint enance requirements on those operating ships already overdue 

for normal shipy ard overhaul, and resulted in a backlog of 

deferr ed maintenance on many ships, which was particularly severe 

in surface ships. This resulted in a lowe ring of the overall 

mate rial condition and pushed corrective maintenance to the more 

costly interme diate and depot levels. Recognizing the condition 

exist ing in early 1974, the Chief of Naval Operations directed the 

development of a compr ehensive p rogram to promote early improvement in the fleet's mater ial condition.

Initial examina tion of the problem showed that shipyard 

capacity is limited. There was insufficient capacity to accomplish the bac klog of shipyard overhauls in a short period. Rather 

a reduction could only be accomplished in successive increments 

over the next several years and would require a careful balancing 

between the annual o verhaul budget, the shipy ard workforce, and 

the operational schedules of ships involved.

(Insert Chart No. 4)

U l- 6 3 8 0 - 7 9 - 2 5
SHIP SUPPORT IMPR OV EM EN T PROJECT OVERVIEW

(Chart No. 4)

IMA PROGRAM

• SHORE IMA

• AFLOAT UPGRADE

• TRAINING

IMPROVE CONTRIBUTION

OF

20,000 SAILORS
383

MAI NTENANCE OF U. S. NAVY SHIPS (CONTINUED)

It beca me apparent in this examina tion that there was a 

need for a total review of overall ship maintenance strategy. 

This led to the sh ip ’s support improvement project w hich is 

our long -range maintenance project, (See Chart 4) and includes 

the FFG-7 support program, a program to develop the necessary 

change s to the Navy maintenance system to foster improved fleet 

readiness, the D estroyer Engineered Operating Cycles Support 

Program and an Intermediate Maint enance Program to support these 

new maintenance concepts. An example of the Nav y’s new mai nte nance concept is the maintenance p lan the Navy has developed for 

the FFG-7 Frigate Class. The first FFG-7 was delivered to the 

Navy last fall. Earlier managers recognized that the ship 

would require a new concept in maintenance support to achieve 

the Chief of Naval Operations operational availability goal.

The man ning limitation and the op erational avail ability goal 

combin e to dri ve a new concept of ship mainte nance for surface 

ship s— modular replacement and the progressive overhaul.

(Insert Chart No. 5)
FFG-7 CLASS OPERATING CYCLES

P ro gre ssiv e O verh aul

(Ch art No. 5 )_______________

Ye ars
385

MAINTENANCE OF U. S. NAVY SHIPS (CONTINUED)

The FFG-7 is designed to be supported by modular change-out of 

equipment. A rigor ous program has been-es tablished to assure the 

required accessi bility for maintenance, stand ardization of ship 

equipment throughout the class is being achie ved duri ng ship construction, and maintenance and repair availability at pier side 

are b eing planne d at this time.

The FFG-7 will be overhauled on a progressive basis as shown 

in Chart 5 through a series of scheduled intermediate maint enance 

availabilities and scheduled restricted availabilities. It will 

undergo a major m odernization overhaul every ten years, rather than 

the traditional overh aul every three or four years. More work will 

go to the Intermediate M aintenance Activity level. It is for this 

reason that the Na vy has initiated its Intermediate M aintenance 

Activ ity improvement program. To make this concept effective,

Shore Intermediate Maint enance Activities must be p rovided at the 

homeports whi ch support the concentrations of Nav y ships, San Diego, 

Pearl Harbor, Norfolk, Charleston and Mayport. Th at ’s where the 

ships are!

To addres s the maintenance problems at the intermediate level, 

the Navy has increased material and repair parts resources to 

matc h labor resources. In addition, the Navy has placed emphasis 

on s ched uling of intermediate repai r periods and as a consequence 

improved ship availability plan ning and increased productive output.

The manag ement of Intermediate M aintenance Activities has b een 

improved by es tablishment of a modified data system to program and 

indicate the progress of repair jobs, repair ma teri als and manpower 

requirements.

A quality assur ance program has r ecen tly been implemented to 

ensure work accom plished in critical ship systems meets the required 

standard in bot h the s ubmarine and surface forces.

These a ction s have all bee n a ccom plished within existing assets 

The Navy, however, recognized that these assets were Inadequate and 

additional capability would be required to support the n ew maintenance conce pts at the intermediate level. It was necessary, therefore, to develop an improvement program to in crease the c apacity 

and capability of the I ntermediate Maintenance Activities. The 

program includes an upgrade of both tender and Shore Intermediate 

Maintenance Activ ity facilities, a training program for Intermediate 

Mainten ance Activity managers and artificers, an improvement in 

support and test equipment for these personn el and a program to 

contract the over flow of intermediate level w ork to private industry

The SIMA portion of this program provides facilities improvements at e ach of the Nav y’s S IM A’s as shown on the following chart.

(Insert Chart No. 6)
SIM A LOCATIONS

(C h a rt No. 6)
387

MAINTENANCE OF U. S. NAVY SHIPS (CONTINUED)

The facilities at the present activities v ary signi ficantly 

in their scope and condition, but generally they are inadequate 

for carrying on the required productive work.

The current SIMA military construc tion progr am proposes 

improve ments at each of the SIMAS as shown below:

Site Primary Impact

Mayp ort New Facility

Pearl Harbor New Facility

San D iego Rehab and upgrade of 

two increments

exist ing facilities in

Norfolk

Charleston

Naval Submarine Support 

Facility, New 

Lond on

Pearl Harbor 

SUBASE

New Facility

Rehab and upgrade of existing facilities 

Rehab and upgrade of e xisting facilities

Rehab and upgrade of ex isting facilities

New facilities are not required at all sites. Rehabilitation 

and u pgra ding of existing facilities is the major thrust of the 

overall program. This year, the Navy seeks appr oval of a military 

construction project at Mayport, Florida, beca use the present 

facili ty is in the worst condition of all the SIMAS.

The present facility at Mayport lacks essential repair 

capabilities such as ability to repai r the hy draulic systems of 

the FFG-7 and DD-963. The activity consists of an old commissary 

building, some trailers and a few small scatt ered buildings. This 

facility was never intended to house a productive industrial oper ation. The Navy is constrained from making major improvements to 

the existing facility because it lies both within the b as e’s 

explosive hazard arc and the hazard zone for the ad joining airfield 

runway. Improvement of these facilities is necessary to mee t both 

the increase in ships scheduled for ho meporting in Mayport and to 

meet the req uirements of the ne w ship classes and complex new 

systems and equipments that wi ll be installed on these ships. 

Between now and FY 1983, there is an increase in po rtloading in 

Mayport of some twenty ships as shown in the following table:

(Insert Table 1)
Mayport Shiploading

• (T a b le No. 1)

S h ip T ype 78 2 2 80 81 8_2 2 2 21

AD 1 1 — 1 1 1 1

AOR - 1 1 1 1 1 ’ 1

CG 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

CV

2

2

2 1 1 1 1

DD 93 1 3 3 2

4

4

4 4 go

DD 96 3 - - 3 3 3 3 3

DD 1 1 - - —

—

— DDG

4 3 4 1 2 3 4

FF 1040 1 3 3 3 3 3 3

FF 1052 5 4

4 5 5 5 5

FFG -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

FFG -7 1 1 3 9 15 15 15

MSO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ATF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

T o t a l S h ip s 22 23 26 32 39 40 41
389

This includes fourteen FFG-7 and three DD-963. By the end 

of FY 1980, three DD-963 and three of the FFG-7 ’s wi ll be in ' 

Mayport.

The Navy will man the SIMA's with sufficient technical manpower 

to e fficiently utilize the upgraded capacity of the new or modernized facilities

The following table shows the total numbe r of Navy enlisted 

personnel planned for the SIMA Program, indicating an average 

growth of 232 per sonnel per year.

FY 1980 FY 1981 FY 1982 FY 1983 FY 1984 FY 1985

5,378 5,632 5,888 6,147 6,357 6,536

The retirement of the USS Grand Canyon (AR-28) in FY 1978 

provi des some of the technical personnel necessary to man these 

facilities. The Chief of Naval Operations has directed that the 

Intermediate Main tenance Activities be manne d to the programmed 

levels shown above. The SIMA facilities are requir ed to support 

the new ship classe s and equipments. They furnish an additional 

benefi t of providing a place for the Navy to ass ign its technical 

ratings where they can maintain their skill proficiency while they 

are on shore duty so that upon their return to sea they will be 

able to both maint ain and operate their equipment.

Alternate pr oposals which have been investigated and the Nav y’s 

comments on these proposals follow:

a. Construct smaller facilities that more accurately reflect 

the numbers and experience of the personnel. Smaller facilities

should be consi dered wh ich would more accurately reflect the

numbers and experience of the pers onn el.

The Na vy prog ram has been sized to the number of personnel 

whic h will be available in 1985.

b. Alternatives to assigning personnel to S IM A’s.

(1) A ssign SIMA personnel to Naval shipy ards - Pier space 

and ship support services at the shipyards are inadequate for 

accommo dating all ships requiring intermediate maintenance. The 

assignment of driv e-in type intermediate maintenance activity work 

to shipyards would increase the loss of operat ional availability of 

ships due to fuel and ammunition off-load require ments. With the 

limited number of ships in the fleet, this would have a serious 

impact on the avai lability of forces for operations. Superimposing 

small individual intermediate maintenance acti vity jobs on the 

produ ctive force of a shipyard would have an advers e impact on the 

long termed planned availabilities norm ally h andl ed by the depot, 

whether civil ian or Naval. This would lead to an overall rise in 

the cost of ship maintenance. Also, a serious p rob lem would likely 

be created with shipyard unions. The questions of work assignment 

and overti me allocations are among the difficulties that would 

arise.
(2) Assign personnel as Instructors to the training 

command - Onl y a limited number of personnel would be qualified 

as instructors. Billets to support skill profi ciency would not be 

available to support the major ity of the personnel, and significantly, this proposal w ould not accomplish any of the intermediate level 

mai nte nan ce.

(3) Assi gn SIMA personnel to depot activities to work on 

repairables - Work on selected components w ould not provide the 

broad range of experience required to accomp lish the objective to 

improve the skill profi ciency of maintenance personnel so that 

they are capable of opera ting and main taining complex ship systems 

when they ret urn to sea.

(4) Expansion of the M obile Technical Unit concept as an 

alternative assignment for personnel - The ma jority of personnel 

cannot be qualified for instructor and independent type duty. 

Additionally, it would be necessary to expand the Mobile T echnical 

Unit equipment and facilities to the same extent as that of the 

SIMAs.

(5) Expand the use of Naval shipyards to accomplish 

intermediate maint enance repairs - This propo sal would be extremely 

disruptive to the work in the shipyards where the obj ective is to 

provide a balan ced steady workload for the accomplishment of major 

repairs and alterations. This would increase the overall cost of 

ship ma intenance and the Navy would not obta in the benefit of retaining the main tenance skills of its t echnical personnel while on 

shore duty.

(6) Redef ine inport tenders as shore duty and assign 

homeported ship m aintenance personnel to the tenders - The Navy has 

only enough tenders to meet wartime mobi lity requirements and their 

shop spaces are insufficient to accommo date the a dditional personnel. To increas e the number of tenders to the level required to 

accomplish all interme diate maintenance would be muc h more expensive 

than upgrading the SIMA's.

With r egard to the creation of "mini-ship yards" and compe tition 

with the private sector, SIMA's are designed as light industrial 

activities to supplement depot level activities. A significant 

increase in the number of ships at Mayport is presently scheduled 

which w ill lead to increased contracting in the private sector for 

those work items beyond the capacity of the SIMA.

A r eview of the FY 1980 Congress ional Budget for repair of 

other vesse l funds indicates a definite growth in funds programmed 

in the private sector. The following table shows that the SIMA 

program does not encroach on the contractor dollars being spent in 

the private sector.
391

FY 1980 Congressional Budget 

Intermediate Maintenance Acti vity 

(Repair of Other Vessel) Dollars

Mater ial for Support 

Of Navy Perso nnel

Contract (CIS)

TOTAL

($M)

FY 1978

91.5

5.6 (6%)

97.1

FY 1979

105.5

26.6(20%)

132.1

FY 1980

122.5

50.1 (29%)

172.6

The direct labor performed by the Navy and 

in FY 1978 and that projected for FY 1983 is:

private industry

SIMA Tender Contract

FY 1978 (Actual) 156.7

FY 1983 (Projected) 237.7

The growth in the private sector

176.3

192.4

9.8

241.6

is significant.

Private cont racting in the Ma yport area will grow from $1.8 

million in FY 1979 to $4.1 million in FY 1980. This is not 

creatin g seriou s competition for the private sector. On the 

contrary, rather than competing, having these light industrial 

facilities for the emergent maintenance requirements will tend 

to ensure a more stable level of effor t for the civilian contr actors

Several steps have been taken to improve the intermediate 

level w orkload projection:

a. An engi neering analysis to document the maintenance 

requirements by level of repair has been completed for SSBN's, 

SSN ’s, FF 1052 Class and DDG 7 Class.

b. Mate rial costs to support each mainten ance man-hour 

of pro ductive effort has b een established.

c. The type and amount of w ork required at each intermediate 

maintenance acti vity a vailability in the ship cycle has been 

specified.

In summary, the Navy has a firm underst anding of the workl oad 

problem, and the shore facilities needed for the workload. The 

SIMA Program is a major cornerstone of the Navy's total maintenance 

plan and is essential to the Navy's abilit y to support the n ew 

ship maintenance strategies and the fleet of the 1980 's.
392

COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY

Senator Huddleston. One other area. The House last year, as you 

recall, raised some questions and concerns about SIMA, such as 

competition with private industry, credibility of the workload 

projections and nonavailability of the rated skilled personnel in 

numb ers required.

Would you comm ent on those concerns with particular emphasis on 

the situation at Mayport?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir. The private sector is getting increased IMA 

business. The Navy’s assignment of IMA work to private yards has 

increased from $6 million in 1978 to $27 million this year, and will go 

to $51 million next year.

Of that, for example, Mayport had no contracting in 1978. They’re 

doing $2 million this year and will do $4 million next year, and will rise 

to $17 million in 1983 on top of what we are requesting------

Senator Huddleston. Even with your own improvement?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. So the private contracting is going to continue 

to go up?

Admiral Iselin. It is going to continue upward. The respective 

workload, the workload for Mayport is firm, as it is for the other 

locations. Particularly, Mayport is based on the growth of homeported 

ships, as I indicated, from 23 today to 42 in the out years. The 

workload is equally solid. The CNO himself is c omm itted to filling the 

enlisted billets and to fully man these maintenance activities. For 

example, the growth will be from 5,300 enlisted men who are now 

working in the SIMA’s to 6,500 by the time we complete this program.

AVAILABILITY OF SKILLED PERSONNEL

Senator Huddleston. Is there a difficulty getting the skilled personnel 

to handle these projects?

Admiral Iselin. In general, the answer is “Yes,” bu t the SIMA 

provides an unusual opportunity in that those people who come off the 

ships for their shore tours can be employed in precisely the skills that 

they have, and can work in those skills to enhance them and 

accomplish maintenance work as well. So it’s really killing two birds 

with one stone.

Senator Huddleston. Then they go back on the ship?

Admiral Iselin. After their shore tours, they would go back aboard 

ship and in many cases they will work on the same equipment while 

assigned to the ship.

Senator Huddleston. Do you have a training program within the 

Navy for this mechanical work?

Admiral Iselin. We do; yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. And do you use civilian personnel?

Admiral Iselin. To a small extent we use civilian personnel in the 

SIMA’s. They are perhaps only 5 percent numerically of the sailors.
393

NAVAL AIR STA TION, LEMOORE

Senator Huddleston. You are requesting $6.3 million for two 

projects at the Naval Air Station, Lemoore, which will accommodate 

the introduction of the F-18 aircraft. I guess my questions are not so 

much on the specific facilities as they are in the general question of 

new systems’ impact.

I assume that the F-18 is replacing some other aircraft. Is this true in 

Lemoore?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir, to some extent. The F-18 is a dual-role 

aircraft. Tha t is, both fighter and attack. In the attack role, it will 

ultimately replace the A-7 light attack squadrons that are now onb oard 

at Lemoore.

Senator Huddleston. So how much change can we expect, how much 

impact in the facilities necessary to sup port the new aircraft systems?

Admiral Iselin. Of course we had to analyze that before we began 

work on these projects. We found first of all that our existing space at 

Lemoore for the present functions, which includes the A-7 ’s, is being 

fully utilized. We know also that we can’t, with systems as large as 

these and with the numb ers that are involved and the sup port tha t 

comes with them, bring all the F- 18 ’s in and get rid of all the A- 7’s.

So there is a planned overlap of 5 to 10 years as one system phases 

in and the other system phases out.

We must necessarily conduct training on both aircraft at the same 

time. The decommissioning of the A-4 squadrons did create some 

maintenance training space, and we will be using that, bu t it did no t 

create for us any respectable amount of operational train ing space. So 

we will do our maintenan ce training in the large former A-4 training 

building that has 112,000 square feet, and we will upgrade that, 

probably through a military construction project. But we can’t get any 

unused operational training space and tha t is what this particular 

request is for.

So I would say it is the overlap betw een the phasing in of the F-1 8 

and the phasing out of the A-7.

Senator Huddleston. Does that mean you’ll have excess facilities 

once you have the transition completed?

Admiral Iselin. Looking at a 5- to 10-year frame, we mig ht estim ate 

that we will prob ably be looking at a replacement system some time 

after that. So maybe at that stage of the game we would have sufficient 

facilities for another transition.

RETURN OF FLE ET TO LO NG BEACH

Senator Huddleston. Several years ago, we went through the throes 

of moving fleet elements out of Long Beach, Calif., and we closed the 

Hunters Point Shipyard in San Francisco. Now I understand we are 

moving back into Long Beach.

Can you bring the subcommittee up to date on the plans for 

restationing ships at Long Beach?
394

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir. Ships were removed at Long Beach for 

home port purposes when the overall size of the Navy was reduced 

several years ago. Many of the Long Beach ships were to go to San 

Diego.

In that interim, we are providing the smaller and smaller crews on 

these ships more assistance from pierside as we bring those ships into 

home port, so we are now facing some berthing problems in San Diego 

to provide enough services to all the ships.

San Diego, for example, has 118 hom eported ships now and it will go 

to 140 unless we get some relief, which is Long Beach. So the Navy has 

studied the return of approximately 27 ships to Long Beach over the 

next 3 years. A final decision has not yet been made, but we do expect 

that it will be announced shortly.

Senator Huddleston. Will that require a large construction effect?

Admiral Iselin. Sir, prior to closing Long Beach, there were projects 

that were required to support the ships there and we canceled those 

projects as a result of that action. So if we bring the ships back in, 

some work which we estimate to be approximately $10 million would 

be required to reopen the station.

Senator Huddleston. Has reopening of Hun ters Point been 

considered?

Admiral Iselin. No, sir. No plan for Hunters Point. You may know 

that tha t property is now leased out to a private shipping company. 

OROTE AMMUNITION WHARF, GUAM

Senator Huddleston. Last year the House took action to add $43 

million to fiscal year 1979 bill for replacement of our ammunition 

hand ling facilities at Agana Harbor, Guam. The project was dele ted in 

conference since the matter had not been considered by this committee.

There are no funds projected for this in fiscal year 1980. Does that 

mean that the project is not being pursued?

Admiral Iselin. Sir, the project was originally included in our plan 

for fiscal year 1980, bu t we took some serious budget reductions this 

year and it was o f a low enough priority that it did not make the cut

As we see it, the requ irem ent remains the same as before, bu t we’re 

looking at tough budget levels for the next 2 or 3 years.

Senator Huddleston. Is this proposal being driven by military 

necessity? Do we get any particular benefit from it?

Admiral Iselin. Of course military necessity requires prop er safe 

handling of explosives, and the primary benefit that we would get from 

this project would be relief from loss and property in the event of an 

explosion.

We do have some Navy fuel piers and across the harbor, several 

repair wharves and a coup le of ship repair facilities that currently are 

within the arc of a full amm unition off-loading at the existing wharf.

Now the Guam commercial port and industrial park are much closer 

and are much more in danger if we bring in a full load. We do not 

bring in a full load now to help minimize tha t particular problem, but 

in wartime we would require a full load.
395

Senator Huddleston. If you bring in a load, they have to shut down 

now?

Admiral Iselin. If we bring in a full load, as we had to do a couple 

of times in Vietnam, we did have to restrict certain portions of the 

comm ercial operations.

Senator Huddleston. That causes public relations problems?

Admiral Iselin. Extrem e public relations problems. One of the 

problems that they see very clearly and which we recognize equally as 

well is tha t there is some property there for development, bu t as long as 

tha t unlo adin g wharf is where it is, it just doesn’t make sense to 

develop it

marine corps program

Sena tor Huddleston. On the Marine Corps program, General, your 

statement indicates that changes in the construction outlook over the 

next several years will delay elimination of your enlisted housing deficit 

by more than 10 years.

What is the basis for these reduced funding levels?

Gen eral Cheatham. Mr. Chairman, the Marine Corp s reduced level 

of funding projected over the next 5 years resulted from a general 

decrem ent within the Dep artm ent of Navy with regard to military 

construction funds. Since the Marine Corps presently shares the rate of 

12.4 percent of the nond irectcd portion of the Navy military 

construction program, when the military construction within the 

Dep artm ent o f Navy was reduced, our total TOA was reduced also.

Sena tor Huddleston. Was there a conscious decision tha t this deficit 

would be acceptable?

Gen eral Cheatham. It was a conscious decision at the Deparment of 

Navy level, yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. You have referred to funds being requested for 

“two armory projects.” Where are these and how much do they 

involve?

Gen eral Cheatham. One of the armories, Mr. Chairman, is at the 

Marine Corps Air Station at Cherry Point, N.C., and will cost abo ut 

$800,000. The other, which will cost $500,000, is at the Marine Corps 

Air Station (Helicopter) at New River, N.C., which is near Jacksonville.

Senator Huddleston. Why wasn’t this funded by the Reserve 

components?

General Cheatham. I think there is a misnom er here. The Army, and 

I believe the Air Force, use the term “arm ory” as a Reserve training 

establishment. The Marine Corps and the Navy call them training 

centers. But these are actually being built for active duty Marines.

TRIDENT AND POSEIDON PROGRAMS

Senator Huddleston. I might get back jus t a little bit on the subject 

we covered rath er thoroughly yesterday regarding the Trident and the 

Poseidon programs. You indicated that Bangor could be expanded if 

the Triden t program went beyond 13. I assume that expansion would be 

the logical move, as opposed to having a second Triden t base in the 

Pacific.
396

Admiral Iselin. That is correct.

Senator Huddleston. What would be the principal dete rminations in 

determining where to base Trid ents in the Atlantic?

Admiral Iselin. The primary consideration of basing Tridents in the 

Atlantic is strategic. TTie principal factors evaluated for the five 

candidate bases on the east coast will be prov ided for the record.

[The information follows:]

Determinations in Basing Trident

1. Utilities — The impact caused by demand on local water, electric, sewer and solid 

waste systems, and the cost for altern ative systems or impro veme nts to the present 

systems.

2. Roads— Th e impact o f increased usann

 o f roads and highways and im prov em en t 

to the road systems necessary to sup port base operations.

3. Schools— The impact caused by the in flux o f school-age ch ildren and the 

improvem ents/add itio ns necessary to support them.

4. Economic— The costs to local governments to prov ide increased services related to 

the base or its personnel.

5. Dredgin g— The extent o f the dredging necessary to prepare existing channels for 

Trid ent and the extent o f lan d needed for spo il disposal.

6. Endangered Species— Endangered, threatened, or rare species o f plan ts/animals 

wh ich may be affe cted by base construction .

7. Cu ltu ral Resources— Any area/site o f intrinsic, his toric, or pre his toric significance 

wh ich may be affected by base construction .

8. La nd Acq uisitio n— I .and wh ich mu st be purchased fo r base construction or fo r 

assuring the integrity o f the explosive safety arcs. Also land wh ich mu st be 

encumbered.

9. Existing Mission— The effec t o f base construction or explosive safety arcs on the 

mission /ope ration o f agencies/activities existin g in the area.

10. Dis loc ation—Th e req uir em ent for existing age ncies/activities to relocate due to 

base construction or location w ithin proposed explosive safety arcs.

TRIDENT SUBMARINES

Senator Huddleston. Is the Triden t far more capable than the 

Poseidon tha t has been back fitted?

Admiral Iselin. The Triden t subm arine, as you know, will carry 24 

missiles versus the 16 the Poseidon carries. The initial missile of Triden t 

I will be the same missile for both the Poseidon backfit and the Triden t 

submarine. But as we did in upgrading Polaris to Poseidon, we built a 

bigger tube in the Polaris boats. We had a smaller missile to start with, 

bu t this perm itted us to have a second and third generation missile for 

the Poseidon boats.

So the Triden t subm arine will have the capability for a significantly 

improved Triden t II missile that the Poseidon boat cannot carry.

Senator Huddleston. So the next generatio n will have to rely upo n 

the Trident?

Admiral Iselin. Absolutely.

Senator Huddleston. It has other characteristics, too, I assume?

Admiral Iselin. Oh yes, sir, it has operational characteristics.

Senator Huddleston. The Poseidon could never be ada pted to 

equalize th at
397

Admiral Iselin. The oth er thing about Poseidon is that while we are 

extendin g them approximately 5 years beyond their estimated 20-year 

life, we basically can’t push those boats muc h further because, as you 

can appreciate, they are subjected to extremely rigorous pressures from 

their operating depth.

BASING TRIDENTS IN THE ATLANTIC

Sena tor Huddleston. If the decision is made to base Tridents in the 

Atlantic, what considerations would be used in determining whether to 

place them in Kings Bay or some oth er location?

Admiral Iselin. There is a study which has now been prepared within 

the Navy and is b eing reviewed by the Secretary in which five sites, the 

same five sites that were looked at in the determination of the Kings 

Bay for the relocation of the Rota squadro n are being looked at as a 

possible east coast full-scale Trid ent base. Tha t decision is due to come 

out from the Secretary, although no particular time frame has been 

established for when it will come out.

Senator Huddleston. Strategic questions are involved in tha t 

decision?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir, I would say tha t they are.

Senator Huddleston. Has any preliminary work been don e on 

whether or not there would be construction requ irem ents if we decide 

to go ahead with the Triden t II missile?

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir. A co nsiderable amount of planning has gone 

forward in a notio nal way to sup port the Tride nt on the cast coast. It is 

quite obvious that many of the facilities tha t we have already com pleted 

at Bangor would be duplicated for the east co ast

Senator Huddleston. Gen tlem en, I think tha t concludes the formal 

questioning. Oth er mem bers who were unable to be here may have 

some to submit to you in writing.

Admiral Iselin. Yes, sir, we will b e happy to provide those answers. 

subcommittee recess

Senator Huddleston. Thank you very much . If there is nothing else 

we will recess pending call of the Chair.

[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., Friday, March 23, the subcomm ittee was 

recessed, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

U l- 6 3 8 0 - 7 9 - 2 6

MILITARY CONST RUCTION APPRO PRI ATION S FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 1980

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 1979

U.S. Senate,

Subcommittee of the C ommittee on Appropriations,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:25 a.m., in room S—126, the Capitol, 

Hon. Walter D. Huddleston (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senator Huddleston.

DEPARTMEN T OF DEFEN SE 

Department of the Air Force

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM D. GILBERT, DIRECTOR OF 

ENGINEERING AND SERVICES, U.S. AIR FORCE

ACCOMPANIED BY:

ROBERT E. JAMISON, DIRECTORATE OF BUDGET

LT. COL. CONRAD O. FORSYTHE, DIRECTORATE OF SPACE SYSTEMS 

AND COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS

CAPT. LOUIS R. UNZELMAN, DIRECTORATE OF ENGINEERING AND 

SERVICES

BUDGET REQUEST

Senator Huddleston. The subcommittee will come to order.

We are meeting this morning to receive testimony on the fiscal year 

1980 budget request for Air Force Military Construction. That request 

assumes $539.7 million in new appropriations , contrasted with $520.8 

million enacted in fiscal 1979. Although this appears as an $18.9 million 

increase over prior year, there is really a decrease of over $20 million in 

terms of total program, since other sources previously applied will not 

be available in fiscal 1980.

The principal witness in support of the Air Force program will be 

Maj. Gen. William D. Gilbert, Director of Engineering and Services for 

the Air Force.

General Gilb ert, do you have a statement?

General G ilbert. I have a short stateme nt that I would like to make 

with the Cha irman’s perm ission.

Senator Huddleston. Certainly.

General G ilbert. It is a pleasure to app ear before the committee to 

pres ent the Air Force fiscal year 1980 military construction program. 

The prim ary objective of this program is to support the force structure 

(399)
400

and readiness goals as presented by the Air Force Ch ief o f Staff in his 

annual report to the first session of the 96th Congress.

The bill now before your committee requests appropriation of $581 

million to the Air Force for new constructio n with major subdivisions 

as follows: regular military construction, $539.7 million; military family 

housing, $1.3 million; and Guard/Re serve construction, $40 million, for 

a total of $581 million.

My comm ents today address only the $539.7 million requested for 

the regular military construction program, since family housing and 

Reserve Forces construction will be covered separately in accordance 

with the usual practice of your committee.

The $539.7 million in the regular military construction program 

includes $337.5 million for projects inside the United States, $126.2 

million for projects outside the United States, $29 million for projects at 

various locations worldwide, and $47 million for planning and design. 

ITiis year’s request builds on programs we have initiated in the past, 

and that we plan to continue in the future. It also brings to an end a 

major program that has been ongoing for the past few years and marks 

the beginning of several new programs.

Before going into a discussion of the details of our request, I would 

like to briefly cover some of the programs in which your committee 

and others in Congress have expressed an interest.

FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITIES

Our fiscal year 1980 request includes flight simu lator facilities at 11 

locations for $19.6 million. These projects are a continua tion of an 

overall program designed not only to improve aircrew proficiency 

through new training concepts, but also reduce operation and 

maintenance costs of current aircraft resources. There are also 

significant cost avoidances in critical fuel supplies as well, and as such, 

the flight simulator program can be considered an adjunc t to the Air 

Force’s overall energy conservation program.

In supp ort of this beneficial national program, this year’s request for 

$78.2 million will fund the second increment of projects for the Space 

Shuttle.

SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Last year the Congress approved $113.5 million for facilities at 

Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral, Fla. For fiscal year 1980, we are 

requesting funds for maintenan ce and checkout facilities for the 

Orbiter, additional funds for the proposed launch pad, utilities upgrade, 

a Titan replacement facility and security modifications to the mission 

operations buildings at the Johnson Space Center, Tex. Th e Johnson 

Space Cen ter modifications are required to perm it support of classified 

DOD missions due to begin in early fiscal year 1982 at the Kennedy 

Space Center. There are no alternatives to meet this required date.
401

As you recall, we advised the Congress last year that our program 

was geared to an initial operational capability date at Vandenberg of 

June 1983. This date was predicated on space traffic projections that 

since have been revised due to budg et and other programmatic 

considerations. Also, NASA has advised tha t thrust augm entation is 

necessary to achieve the Shuttle’s specification performance.

These changes impact the design of the Vandenberg launch pad and 

increase the technical and schedule risk associated with achieving the 

Jun e 1983, date. The desire to minim ize technical and schedule risk 

associated with our program for Shuttle use, while meeting firm 

Vandenberg DOD and civil launch needs, led us to delay the Shuttle 

IOC at Vandenberg until Dec ember 1983.

To meet the new IOC, which will initially provide capability for up 

to six launches per year, additiona l construction in the amoun t of $119 

million will be requ ired in fiscal years 1981 and 1982. In fiscal year 

1983, $17 million will be needed for additional servicing facilities to 

accommodate an increase in the launch rate at Vand enberg to the 20 

maxim um launches per year. The total Air Force construction cost for 

space shuttle is currently estim ated to be approximately $328 million 

through fiscal year 1983.

Your past support of our efforts to enhance the Air Force’s capability 

in our national programs is appreciated, and we solicit your continued 

sup port of this year’s projects and future year’s requests.

ENERGY CONSERVATION AND POLLUTION ABATEMENT

Our energy program is an aggressive energy conservation investment 

program, ECIP, for $23.8 million, which is carefully structured and 

closely monitore d to reduce our facility energy consumption by 12 

perc ent in 1985 compared to 1975 baseline levels. Projects in this 

program arc intended to achieve this goal by modifying existing 

buildings to make them more energy efficient, to include modifications 

to their mechanical and lighting systems; installing insulation, storm 

windows, and energy monitoring and control systems. We anticipate 

that these projects will avoid $5.7 million of energy costs annually and 

will pay back their investment in 4 years.

In the area of alternate fuel sources, we are continuing our pursuit of 

these alternatives, as we did in the past with refuse derived fuel, which 

we plan to be burning at Wright-Patterso n AFB, Ohio, by this summ er. 

Biomass—wood, straw, and other renewable, nonconvcntional fuel 

sources are alternate potentials which we are also looking into at 

locations where a supply of this material is economically available. In 

addition, a small coal gasification plan t is being investigated as a joint 

DO D/DO E initiative at Mino t AFB, N. Dak., using lignite as a fuel 

source for gasification.

FACILITY ENERGY PROGRAM

Finally, our facility energy prog ram is a modest investment in 

renewable energy resources of solar, geotherm al, and the wind where 

these sources are feasible.
402

In keeping with national environmental protection policies, our $16.2 

million request for water and air pollution control projects reflects our 

continuing efforts to meet the more stringent water and air quality 

standards promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA, and the States in response to the 1977 amendm ents to the Clear 

Water and Clean Air Acts.

Design for fiscal year 1980 is progressing well and we expect to 

duplicate or bett er our fiscal year 1979 performance. In addition, design 

of the fiscal year 1981 prog ram will benefit from design progress on 

projects that were deferred from fiscal year 1980 as a result of budget 

changes last December.

During this past year, whether because of accelerated inflation, 

regionally saturated construction markets, or the reduced strength of the 

dollar overseas, construction costs have risen to a degree that some 

project adjustments were necessary to get projects awarded within the 

budget. Fortunately, we have not had to make any major reductions in 

the scope of these projects.

CONCL USION

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we wish to assure you and your 

comm ittee that this program represents our best jud gm ent and priority 

construction requirem ents with the confines of ou r budget. Capital 

investm ents are proposed only for those installations programed to 

remain in the inventory.

The fiscal year 1980 MCP includes funds for two major ongoing 

programs: space transportation system and unaccom panied personnel 

housing, of utmost importance in the Dep artm ent of Defense and the 

Air Force.

And I would like to offer a short inform ational presentation on each 

of these two programs at your convenience, sir.

This concludes my statement and we are now prepared to answer 

detailed questions as requ ired by the committee, sir.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you very much, General. We have gone 

into NATO support projects, construction in the Pacific, and strategic 

systems at other hearings, so we will not pursue those today.

SPACE TRA NSPORTA TIO N SYSTEM

In the space transportation system, the total Air Force construction 

cost is now projected to be $328 million, compared with about $250 

million forecast a year ago. The increase, you indicated, is attributable 

to design changes and slippage of Vandenberg IOC by 6 months.

Could you clarify further the elements of this increase, how much is 

due to design changes, to other added items of construction, to 

inflation, and so forth?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir, I can. The cost increase falls primarily in 

three areas. One is new requirements. Last year before the joint 

comm ittee with the House, Dr. Perry testified that a decision had been 

made jus t prio r to the hearing that the DOD would go to Johnson
403

Space Cen ter for the control of DOD classified flights out of Kennedy 

and Vandenberg. However, we did not have a cost of the requirements 

to accommodate that decision at tha t time.

So John son Space Center’s secure control facility represents $12.4 

million of the increase this year, and thrust augmentation, which we 

feel is only prudent to build into the one and only launch pad that we 

have at Vandenberg, represents a growth of $13.5 million. Therefore, 

the total for new requirements is $25.9 million. Escalation represents 

abo ut $21.2 million in additional funds, Mr. Chairman.

The third area is design changes. As the program matured and better 

definition of the requ irem ents were known, the changes made to facility 

scope resulted in ano the r $27.9 million increase for a total of 

approximately $75 million above what we estimated the cost to be, last 

year.

THRUST AUGMENTATION

Senator Huddleston. What is the reason for NAS A’s consideration of 

thrust augmentation? What sort of construction would tha t entail?

General Gilbert. Primarily the shuttle is a little overweight 

Therefore, with the overweight c ondition of the vehicle itself, it will not 

carry into space the heaviest pay load requ irem ents projected by NASA 

and DOD .

NASA determined that the bes t way to correct the situation, then, 

would be through thrust augm entation. Basically what it does, it adds 

additional thrust rockets to the vehicle to compensate for the added 

weight to achieve the full specification perf ormance of the Space 

Shuttle system. Although the committee approved last year the funding 

for the launch pad at Vand enberg, as a result of this change, we are 

required to modify the launch mount and oth er structures tha t will be 

required for the additional thrust augmentation rockets. To shut down 

later for those modifications would result in an unacceptable downtime 

for the pad.

In addition to that, it will be much more expensive. Therefore, we do 

not plan to award the contract to complete rehab ilitation of the one 

existing launch pad at Vandenberg until we get a total definitio n of the 

criteria for exhausting and oth er things associated with the thrust 

augm entation, so that it can all be inclu ded in a single construction 

contract to be awarded in the fall o f 1979.

Senator Huddleston. Rem odeling to different specifications, so to 

speak?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir, and it will require some additional 

exhausting because of the strap-ons tha t NASA will use on the space 

vehicle. I will be very honest. I do not have criteria for that yet. We 

fully expect it early this year and we need to do concurr ent 

construction as soon as we do get it in order to meet our new IOC 

date.

DESIGN STATUS OF 1980 PROJECTS

Senator Huddleston. What is the design status of the projects 

requested for 1980? Arc you confident that the estimates are adeq uate?
404

General Gilbert. Yes, sir, I am, and to answer, the design started on 

the utility package represented in this program in September, 1978. We 

are at 35 percent on those now, expecting 90 percent in October, and 

design completion in 1979. We have had a sufficient amount o f 

experience in building these types of utilitie s that are required to 

support the facilities for this system to feel our estimate is very close.

'Ihe orbiter processing facility is 15 percent designed. We feel we do 

have good criteria and definition o f the requirement there, and we’re 

confident we can complete diat design in early fiscal year 1980 with 

little change in the estimate. The solid rocket booster facility design 

started in April, 1978. It is 85 percent complete, and is still holding to 

our original estimate. It is looking good.

Regarding the project at the Johnson Space Center mission control 

center, the design actually will start this month. We have asked NAS A 

to be the design and construction agent for that project, but again we 

have had sufficient experience with protective shielding and other 

physical measures to insure area security that we feel confident of our 

estimate. I do expect that we will be 95 percent designed by October of 

this year on that facility.

Senator Huddleston. We’re trying to draw some relationship between 

the development of the shuttle, its schedule, and construction 

requirements. We arc aware, of course, of problems that developed with 

die shuttle main engine and there’s the matter o f thrust augmentation.

ENGINE PROBLEMS

Has the engine problem been rectified and will it impact on the 

schedule?

General Gilbert. With your permission, sir, I would like for the 

program element m onitor to answer that question.

Colonel Forsythe?

Colonel Forsythe. Wc are closely tracking the NASA development 

status. They have made significant progress in that area. Work yet 

remains to be done. They’re optimistically scheduling the first orbital 

flight, with the orbiter that arrived at Kennedy Space Center just this 

past weekend, on November 9 of this year. That is an optim istic 

schedule. I thin k NASA assesses that there is a 50-50 chance o f 

conducting the launch by the end o f this calendar year. But as far as 

the impact of N AS A’s development status on our program is concerned, 

our program was conceived to tie in to the NASA milestones.

At Kennedy Space Center, our first launch with an experimental 

payload is scheduled in December 1981. NASA is scheduling operations 

capability at die Cape in February of that year, so we have some 

margin there.

With respect to Vandenberg, our IOC is almost 3 years behind the 

projected operations capability at the Cape. So again we feel, that we 

have sufficient margin. 'Ihere is a lot of latitude for NASA to recover 

from their early development problems without impacting our program 

or the construction requirements associated with i t
405

Senator Huddleston. So you are phasing in your construction, 

hopefully, in a timely fashion?

Colonel Forsythe. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. The prospects are that you arc doing better 

than NASA is?

Colonel Forsythe. Yes, sir.

General G ilbert. Tha t is why all prog rams were totally rearrang ed 

from what we would have otherwise bro ught to the Congress this year 

with regard to the facility requirement at Vand enberg. We saw an 

opp ortu nity to rephase it and also to stretch it out over a longer period 

of time, and this is our program to meet those dates.

As C olonel Forsythe indicated, there is still quite a bit of time before 

the Vandcrbcrg IOC date.

Senator Huddleston. Colonel, on NAS A’s 50-50 estimate, is the 

main engine prob lem a factor?

Colonel Forsythe. Yes, sir, it clearly is a factor.

JOHNSON SPACE CENTER

Senator Huddleston. Does the $12.4 million requested for the 

Johnson Space Cen ter comp lete the requirements for that facility?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir. As far as we know, that is the total 

construction requirement for the Johnso n Space Center secure control 

center.

AIR FIELD CONSTRUCTION

Senator Huddleston. Last year we reduced the budget request 

because it appeared tha t airfield construction was prem ature. The Air 

Force conceded that point, indicating tha t the project would be 

included in fiscal year 1980. It is not in the curren t request. Why is 

that?

General Gilbert. For two reasons, sir. The slip in the IOC by 6 

months, and we are now 100 percent designed. Therefore, the project 

will be ready to go on the street any time we get the money. Cou pled 

with a complete review of the need dates of each facility in the 

program, we feel tha t we can comfortably delay the airfield 

construction, which is fairly straightforw ard, until fiscal year 1981. And 

conversely, we would indeed need the facilities that are before the 

committee this year before we would need the runway, so it was just a 

ma tter of postponem ent for one more year in order to stretch the 

prog ram out.

Senator Huddleston. If the funds had been app ropriat ed last year, 

would this still have occurred?

General Gilbert. No, sir. I would have proceeded with the 

construction. I would have been ahead of the requ irem ent very frankly, 

bu t we would have proceed ed with the construction because, as I say, 

we are at 100 perce nt design on that.

Senator Huddleston. Do you have a presentatio n on the shuttle?
406

General Gilbert. Yes; I have a short 10-minutc briefing on its 

operation.

Senator Huddleston. I think we m ight ju st see that now.

General Gilbert. Very good. Colonel Forsythe?

Colonel Forsythe. With your permission I would like to briefly 

reacquaint you with the details of the natio nal space tran sportation 

system progam and DO D’s participation in that program.

The Space Tran sportation System

VUGRAPH 1

•

Colonel Forsythe. You will recall, elem ents of the space 

transportation system are the Space Shuttle depicted here, and the 

mission control facilities at Johnson Space Center in Houston. As 

General Gilbe rt pointed out, we will be using NASA facilities for the 

control of our classified missions and we have $12.4 million in our 

request to modify these facilities.

Also included are the NASA facilities at Kennedy Space Center for 

launching eastward into low inclination orbits and the Vandenberg 

launch and landing facilities under the cognizance of the Dep artm ent of 

Defense for launc hing into high inclination or polar orbits.

Also inclu ded in the DO D program is the inertial upper stage which 

is used to go from the low orbit achievable by the Shuttle to the high er 

altitude orbits required by some of o ur opera tional spa cec raft

Senator Huddleston. How high does the Shuttle go? Th at is, your 

low orbit?
407

Colonel Forsythe. The basic shuttle runs out of payload capability at 

abo ut 300 nautical miles circular orbit, Senator. Generally, our parking 

orbit is 150 miles, and we use the IUS to go from there to 

geosynchronous altitude, that is roughly 20,000 miles, where some of 

our spacecraft are.

Also an elem ent of the STS is the NASA Space Lab, that I have not 

depicted here because we don’t sec any primary utilization for DOD 

operations. We may use it for e xperimen tal purposes.

SPACE TR AN SP ORT AT ION SYSTEM

ORBITE R

PAYLOAD BAY

15 FT DIA X 60 FT LG

3 M AIN EN GINE S

470K LB VAC THRUST, EA 

2 OMS EN GINE S

6000 LB VA C THRUST, EA 

38 RCS EN GINE S

870 LB VAC THRUST, EA

4 RCS VERNIER EN GINE S 

25 LB VA C THRUST, EA

WEIGHT <LB»

DRY (15OK)

DIS IG N LAN D IN G (187K )

SHUTTLE VEHICLE

• D ESIGN LAUNCH

(WEIGHT) 'L B i- 4 4 2 4 k

• P AY LO AD (LB)

DUE EAST 65K

DESIGN (10 4°) 32K

• LENGTH (FT) ' - l 49

• DIAMETER (IN) -1 46

• WEIG HT (LB, EA)

LAUN CH 1287K

RECOVERY ,8 1 k

• THRUST (LB, EAI

LAUN CH 2.6 5M

EXTERNAL TANK

• LENGTH iFT i 154

• DIAMETER (I N I 331

• WEIG HT (LB)

LAUNCH ,628 k

USABLE PROP I552K

VUGRAPH 2

The major elem ent of the system is the Space Shuttle, shown here 

with the orbiter, the fully expendab le external tank and the solid rocket 

boosters that are lowered from the jettison point into the ocean by 

parachutes and refurbished for reuse.

409

VUGRAPH 4

This vugraph depicts a typical Shuttle mission launched from either 

Kennedy Space Center or Vandenberg, with all propulsion systems 

burning. Those are the two solid rockets you see. The main engines are 

mounted in the tail o f the orbiter. At an altitude of about 25 miles, or 2 

minutes into the flight, the solid rocket boosters arc jettisoned, let down 

on parachutes into the ocean, recovered, then go back, shipped back to 

the factory for reloading.

The external tank is a fully expendable element. It carries the 

propellants, the liquid hydrogen and the liquid oxygen for the main 

engines o f the Shuttle orbiter.

When this tank is jettisoned and the main engines are no longer 

functioning because they have no propellants, the orbiter is still 

suborbital. Orbiter injection is achieved by use of the orbiter 

maneuvering subsystem located in pods on either side of the orbiter’s 

tail.

Once in orbit, we accomplish our mission that may be deploying a 

payload, retrieving a payload, deploying an inertial upper stage to add 

propulsion to achieve higher altitudes, or conducting a captive 

experiment that remains in the orbiter bay. When the mission is 

completed, the orbiter reenters much like a conventional aircraft and 

goes through the processing facilities at either the Cape or at 

Vandenberg and is ready for reflight, again completing the cycle.
410

Senator Huddleston. It h as no power when it comes back?

Colonel Forsythe. That is correct, sir, no power at all. It is a gliding 

reentry.

Senator Huddleston. I guess it had better be in the right location. It 

has to be on the ru nway?

DoD STS Development and 

Acquisition Responsibilities

ESTABLISH DOD REQUIREMENTS

SUPPORT THE NASA SHUTTLE SYSTEM ACQUISITION

DEVELOP CAPABILITY FOR PAYLOAD TRANSITION

DEVELOP THE INERTIAL UPPER STAGE

PROVIDE VANDENBERG AFB FACILITIES

INVESTIGATE DOD USE OF UNIQUE SHUTTLE

CAPABILITIES .

VUGRAPH 5

Colonel Forsythe. Yes, sir. This vugraph depicts the DOD 

acquisition responsibilities divided into three major areas; the 

developm ent of the inertial upp er stage that is used for both DOD and 

NASA applications. NASA is adapting it for their interplanetary 

missions, and also the first use will be to deploy the NASA tracking 

and data relay satellite systems tha t will be a communications link for 

the Shuttle, as well as NASA payloads.

The second major elem ent is the Vandenberg facilities. We lumped 

all the rest into a third area called operations capability development 

Modification of the Johnson Space Center to conduct our classified 

operations falls within that category.
411

Major Shuttle Milestone Schedules

CA LENDAR YEAR

1 9 7 7 | 1 9 71 | 19 79 | 1 9 9 0 | 1911 | 1 9 8 2 | 19 8 3

NASA SHUTTLE PRO GRAM

ORB KSC ORB ORB ORB

A L T DEL FMOF IOC DEL OEl DEI

V V v v v V V

M A R N O V FEB SE P D E C D EC '

A M A R J U L .

PDR A A

INERTIAL UPPER STAGE i VAL IDAT ION "| C D f l IOC

VANDENBERG

AIR FORCE BASE

1 FULL SCA LE DEVELOPMENT

M A R ' I ---------------- 1

--------------------------------------------- ,

A PROD

DSARC II ‘

A

| FA CILITY DESIGN | DSARC III

FA CILITY CONST RUCTION | IOC

PGM A r

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D E C

RE VIEW ia n 1 AC TIVA TION

V U G R A P H 6

Here we sec the major prog ram milestones, again keyed to the NASA 

developm ent program. The inertial upp er stage development is shown 

here. Currently, initial operatio ns capability is sched uled for July 1980. 

We sec the requ irem ent for that slipping on out into early 1981 to meet 

our earliest forecast requirem ents. Vandenberg facility construction and 

activation are shown here. I might point out that this jus t leads us to 

the IOC. As General Gilbert indicated, we have an increment of 

construction tha t we’re projecting of fiscal year 1983 that will take us 

from ou r 10- to 12-year capability at this poin t to the full 20-year 

capability by mid-1985. We are phasing our construction to meet ou r 

operation al needs and to meet the forecast level of launch requirements.
412

DOD STS Development

and Acquisition Funding

(THEN YEAR $ MILLIONS)

FY 78 &

PR IO R YE AR S FY 79 FY 80

TOTAL 

THRU 

FY 84

• in er ti al upp er stage 98.7 124.8 67.3 310.9

• VAND ENBERG 84.8 215.5 273.1 1227.5

• OP ER AT IONS C A P A B IL IT Y DEVELOPMENT 74.0 50.4 104.4 439 4

TOTAL PROGRAM 257.5 390.7 444.8 1977.8

VUGRAPH 7

And my final vugraph shows briefly a summ ary of funding. DOD 

participation is something on the order of $2 billion through fiscal year 

1984 broken down into these categories; $310 million for the inertial 

upp er stage development, about $1.2 billion for Vandenberg, and 

operations capability development at $439 million.

Sir, that completes what I have to show you. I would be glad to 

answer any questions on any of those points or related issues.

Senator Huddleston. Has there been any consideration of the 

strategic capability of these systems?

Colonel Forsythe. Wc are looking at using the Shuttle in the initial 

years as a replacement for the expendable launch vehicles and will use 

the shuttle to do all the missions wc do today. Could you clarify more 

exactly what you mean by strategic capabilities?

Senator Huddleston. In the sense of a weapon or a weapon launcher.

Colonel Forsythe. There are currently no plans that envision that 

kind of application.

Senator Huddleston. Is it possible that it could be?

Colonel Forsythe. Certainly. It has that inheren t capability.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you very much.

Colonel Forsythe. Thank you.

General G ilbert. I might add here, Mr. Chairma n, the design of our 

facilities takes into account any additional construction require d and is 

adaptable to modular design.

So it would only be a matter of adding another module as we 

increase to the full capability.

Senator Huddleston. Can you indicate why each of the major 

projects in your request for 1980 must be funded in 1980 as opposed to 

1981 or 1982?

General G ilbert. Yes, sir. As I said earlier, we have don e a complete 

restructuring of the program, so as nearly as we can pred ict now, the 

1980 items are requ ired in the 1980 time frame. As an example, the 

utilities will, in addition to providing utilities for the facilities that will
413

be built, will have to provide utility service during the construction of 

those facilities.

Fo r the orbiter processing facilities, without 1980 funding, we do not 

believe that construction and activation would allow us to meet the IOC 

of December 1983. The same with the solid rocket booster facility. We 

see it, as well as the thrust augmentation, being required in order to 

make the 1983 date. And of course the controlled mode at Johnson 

Space Center will be required even earlier than Vandenberg if we are 

to meet our first requirement for that in 1981. This is the absolute latest 

program for this requirem ent.

Senator Huddleston. Can you provide for the record a schedule for 

plann ed construction by project and fiscal year?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir.

[The inform ation follows:]

*♦1-638 0 - 79 - 27
414

DOD STS FA CIL ITIES REQUIREMENTS (DEC 83 VAFB IOC) 

(T he in fo rm a ti o n f o llo w s :)

FY 79 TOTAL

VAFB

KSC

Lau nc h Pad Comp lex

P aylo ad P ro c e s s in g F a c i l i t i e s

104.7

8 .8

TOTAL

FY 80

113.5

VAFB

JSC

VAFB

O r b ite r M ain te n an ce and C he ck ou t Fac 37.7 

H yperg ol M ain te n an ce an d C he ck ou t

Fac (C o n tr o l an d C e ll A) 5 .5 

T it a n I I I R epla ce m en t F a c i l i t y 3 .2 

M is sio n O p e ra ti o n s C e n te r Mods 12.4 

La un ch Pad T h ru st A ugm enta ti on 13.5 

U t i l i t i e s 6 .1

TOTAL

FY 81

78.2

VAFB

P t Hue

A i r f i e l d

S o li d R ock et B o o ste r (SRB) R e fu rb is h ­

men t an d Subas se m bly

T r a n s p o rta tio n

L o g is tic s F a c i l i t y

I n te g r a te d Ops S u p p o rt C en te r

SAMTEC HQ

E x te rn a l Ta nk S to ra g e and C he ck ou t Fa c 

S o li d R ock et B o o ste r (SRB) R e tr ie v a l

an d D is ass em b ly F a c i l i t y

TOTAL 104.7

FY 82

VAFB H ar bor M o d ific a tio n

P a ra c h u te R e fu rb is h m e n t F a c i l i t y 

F lig h t Crew Syst em s F a c i l i t y

TOTAL

FY 83

14.3

VAFB S a fin g an d D e se rv ic in g F a c i l i t y

H yperg ol M ain te n an ce an d C he ck ou t

(C e ll B)

TOTAL 17.2

3 2 7.9
415

UNACCOMPANIED ENLISTED HOUSING

Senator Huddleston. Turn ing now to unaccom panied personnel 

housing, it appears that you have a presentation?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir. I thought what I would like to do, sir, is to 

tell you what we have done to formalize and consolidate this program, 

where we have been, where we are now and where we have to go in 

upgrading the existing unaccomp anied enlisted personnel facilities.

You may recall, sir, that last year 1 said that the Air Force had all 

major commands do a complete survey of all of the enlisted personnel 

housing spaces we have on our bases, and that comes up to 88,119 

spaces. And to upgrade them to the standards of today represents $741 

million. To date we have had approved 11,356 spaces at $69.6 million, 

and the program before the comm ittee this year will upgrade ano ther 

8,000 spaces at abo ut $60 million. That leaves our remaining 

requirements as indicated in this column, sir.

Tha t again would bring all of ou r spaces up to new construction 

standards, which we believe is absolutely essential if we arc to retain 

airmen in the Air Force in the all-v olunteer program.

Senator Huddleston. W hat arc those standards?

General Gilbert. It is a thre e-tier standard, sir, for E- 2’s through 

E-4’s, it is 90 square feet per man with a semiprivatc bath. So that is 

actually four men sharing a bathroom . For F-5’s and E-6’s it’s 135 net 

square feet per person and a shared bath. Fo r E- 7’s through E-9’s, it is 

270 square feet per person and a private bath.

Senator Huddleston. How docs this compare with the oth er services?

Gen eral Gilbert. It is basically the same, sir. This is DOD criteria. 

We are no differen t in that respect. We are, by permission of OSD, 

doing one thing different. Most of ou r rooms today are two-men rooms, 

whereas by the new construction criteria you build the same square feet 

per person, bu t for E-2’s through E- 4’s, you would build three to a 

room instead of two. So we have asked OS19, and gotten permission, to 

build any new facilities as two men to the room as ldng as we can do it 

within the same limitations.

Sena tor Huddleston. So if you get this program, this 1980 program 

completed, your requirements still will be $600 million. Is that on the 

basis of today’s costs?

Gen eral Gilbert. We have projecte d tha t in then-year dollars as best 

as we can see the marketplace, sir.

Senator Huddleston. $611.4 million, 68,268 units.

Gen eral Gilbert. T hat is spaces, sir.

Sena tor Huddleston. Spaces?

Gen eral Gilbert. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. D o you expect that to remain stable?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir, I do, and I don’t expect a great deal of 

new construction unless something dram atic should happen, because we 

arc fairly well facilitizcd with unaccompanie d personnel housing except 

in isolated locations across the coun try. It is now a matter o f upgrading 

what we have.
416

Senator Huddleston. Has the entry of females into the service 

impacted on this?

General Gilbert. It is nothing that we can’t cope with. Many of our 

buildings now, as the chairman knows, have what we call gang latrines. 

It has given us a little challenge in rearranging the women’s and me n’s 

facilities. We haven’t been able to do that, not to the exte nt that we 

would like to and provide the kind of latrine facilities for eith er we 

would like to provide, but we have been able to live with it.

When we get through this program, we will have a great deal more 

flexibility than we have in o ur currently configured dorms, because with 

the semiprivate, baths, if it became necessary, all we would have to do 

is make sure that adjoining rooms were occupied by the same sex.

Senator Huddleston. So existing facilities can be adapted?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir. We have done two or three different types 

of division of the internal configuration of the building in ord er to 

accommodate women on a temporary basis. In some cases, depending 

on the num ber of females we have assigned, we’re able to give an 

entire floor of a three-story building to the females. In other cases, half 

of the floor, which means they would have one gang latrine.

So we have been able to make those kinds of trade-offs until we get 

throu gh the total upgrade program.

Just as a summary now, in the 1980 program we’re looking at 18 

locations to include upgrading of 7,208 spaces, and we’re asking for, at 

3 locations, 1,287 new spaces. These arc those isolated pockets tha t I 

talked about; all of these spaces will replace old wooden barracks which 

cannot be upgraded. Th at was part of our survey, too. We did not want 

to ask for money to modernize a building that we did n’t feel would 

extend its life for at least 25 years, and in some eases, as an example 

Laughlin Air Force Base, they ’re just not worth upgrading, so we want 

to replace those with modern dorms, built to the new criteria.

lli es c are the locations. For instance, sir, this year we will complete 

the phased program at Eglin. The same with Eglin 9. We will complete 

the requirem ent at Iraklion.

So we are beginning to complete bases now. This is the first year we 

have been able to show any total completions at all. We are beginning 

to close out some locations and begin at others.

Senator Huddleston. You are steadily reduc ing your backlog on this, 

is that right?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir. We hope to work this over the next 5 to 6 

years, depe nding of course on the bud get levels we’re able to get, and 

then as a consequence the amoun t we’re able to pu t into this program. 

But this is very high on both the Secretary’s and the Chief of Staff s 

priority lists because all our surveys tell us that they are one and two 

on the priority list of the bachelor personnel we have in the military. 

One, they want privacy and, two, this modernization prog ram of the 

dormitories.

Senator Huddleston. Directly related to retention?
417

PERSONNEL HOUSING CHARTS

Ge neral Gilb er t. We feel that it is, sir. I co uld n’t quantify the ex tent

to wh ich it is, but it is too consistent across the A ir Force in our

surveys fo r it not to be a real mo rale pr ob lem o f our peo ple.

ITiat conclud es that briefin g, sir. I w ill pro vide a c op y o f the briefin g

fo r the record.

[Th e in fo rm atio n fo llo ws:]

HOUSING

APPROVED S?3.'7TTET

TOTAL to t\ \ r ?

REQUIREME NT ( F Y W 7 9 ) P/’ SO FC^ QEQHIRSKSfT

SPACES 88,139 11,556 S/.-95 • | 66,2£9

$M IL S $74-1.1 $ W .S $60.1 $61 i. 4

• i

FYIS60

HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

$ASS SCOPE (SPACES) COST $ MILS)

MODERNIZATION

ALCOMBDRY- ' $ 0.8 .

• AVIANO 112 0.7

CANNON Z2G I.G

. <7*51X5 4 G 8 5.8

EGI.IN 5 5 0 4.1

- EGLIN# 9 13 9 1.0

ELMENDORF 2 0 3 3.5

GRAND FORKS 57G 4. 9

HILL RANGE 9 2 0.7

HOLLOMAN 27 2 2.0

IRAK U0N 280 L 5

- KJ. SAWYER G/G 5.2

LAKEMHEATH 5 2 S 0.3
418

' M M W WMSL.

■ HOUSING iM P -W E M E M T PR 05SA V. '

' F Y -8 0 MC P SJMMA2Y

AT 18 BASES IMPROVE EXISTING 7,208 SPACES-$4704-M

AT 5 BASES BUILD MEW.......... 1,287 SPACES- 13,10,M

TO TA L 8,4 95 $6 0.14 M

■ HOltSIW© IM PROVEMENT PROGRAM £ o :r ro )

8ASB SCOPE (S'A CS S) COST £$M."-3)

iy.0 PHBnr /./vr iw a m

MIM0T 604 5.1

RAMSTSlW ISO 0.0

TRAVIS • eeo 6.5

LfPPCR WEYFORD 1,078 1.8

v/RtenT-PATTERsar/ 270 2.5

SUB -TOTAL 7,2 08 4 7.0

NBW CONSTRUCTION.

FAIRFORD 375 5.5

LACKLAND 504 4. 4

LAU6WUW 40 9 5.2-

SUB-TOTAL 1,287 IT. 1

TOTAL. 8,425 £ 60-1
■ \ =

t >I I ! 0 tA

I. -1

■ H - L -

t e - i "

i " : . • jjwwrcR tr y y

r4 .. . n w -'J 'i r - j - f j : 4 >

r

/

r-- J - — -

J . . 1 . 4 =

• X

^■ rv -v L.O.S- A

U f

A

» • . .

L ,

r -u►—■ \O

n ' - — 7~ S.— ~ZZ~"

A

\ |— CENTER CORRIDOR T Y P E • + — BA LC ONY T Y P E ■

P Q gm y& f ■ ■ £-%■■ £-4 ■ ............................. 1 , 1 ' ...................... — — * . ■ ■ - - - . . . . . , -

2 MN ROOMS • I GO Sr MET BZDRQOM AREA '•
420

NEW MISSIONS

Senator Huddleston. Ih an k you. Your statement indicates that $60.9 

million of the request is associated with new missions or changes. Only 

a part of that is related to MX and cruise missiles. What are the oth er 

major mission changes?

General Gilbert. Mr. Chairman, although the announcem ent of the 

locations has not been made, we expect it to be made this week. $6.6 

million of that is associated with some rearranging we have to do with 

the F-4 ’s. New aircraft arc on order, and this is to provide room on Air 

Force bases for the new airplanes as they come off the production lines.

The RF -4’s, which are reconnaissance aircraft, arc being consolidated 

at a single training location for $7.8 million. For the F—16, which is a 

new production airplane, the re’s about $9.7 million; the A-10, $11.7 

million; the KC-135’s at Fairford, which has been announced, is $7.6 

million; the F—15 is $2.1 million and the E-3-A , which has been 

announced, is $1.1 million.

With the Chairman’s concurrence, I would provide for the record the 

exact locations to which these new aircraft are going.

Senator Huddleston. I would ask you to do that. It might be helpful 

if you could also provide the anticipated future costs related to these 

changes and new systems.

General Gilbert. Can do, sir.

[The information follows:]

New M issions and M ission Realignments

England AFB, La ......................................................................

[Delete d].....................................................................................

Homestead AFB, Fla................................................................

Nellis AFB, Nev........................................................................

H ill AFB, Uta h..........................................................................

MacDill AFB. Fla.....................................................................

Bergstrom AFB, Tex................................................................

Shaw AFB. S.C .........................................................................

Moody AFB, G a.......................................................................

Bentwaters/Woodbridge, U K ...................................................

Fairford, U K ..............................................................................

Kadena, Jap an...........................................................................

[Delete d].....................................................................................

A- 10 replace A- 7. 

[Deleted.]

F-15 replace F -4.

F-16 replace F-4.

F-16 replace F-4.

F-16 replace F -4.

Increase in RF-4.

F-4 partially replace RF-4. 

Increase in F-4.

A-10 beddown.

New KC-135 base.

E-3A (AW ACS) rotation. 

[Deleted.]

The only new weapon system in this program consists of a Various Locations project 

for SAC for the Air Launched Cruise Missile (A LC M ) support for S14.2 million . The 

anticipated future costs for AL CM for fiscal year 1981 and beyond is S185.5 million .

EFFECTS OF INFLATION

Senator Huddleston. During the course of an othe r hearing last week, 

the Navy testified that inflation was making pretty much of a shambles 

of fiscal year 1979 program execution, and tha t the subcommittee could 

expect a num ber of reprograming requests.

Is the Air Force experiencing the same problems?

General Gilbert. Normally, by getting out on the street at this time 

of the year, we achieve good bid results. However, we are now
421

experiencing bids, as a composite of the total program, abo ut 4 to 6 

percent above what we had prog ramed primarily due to unforeseen 

inflation, nevertheless, I’m still able to buy the program out.

To be very honest with you, for the total fiscal year 1979 program 

bid to date, I am about 5 percent below the total prog ramed am ou nt 

In several instances, I have had to exercise some of the flexibilities as 

auth orized by the Congress, bu t I have not had to reduce any of the 

criteria to any great extent, or certainly not any of the scope beyond 

that required to provide a usable facility.

So far, sir, we arc able to buy the program out. I am pretty 

concerned, though, about coming into the summer, which is normally a 

high bidding time, and we may be in a little difficulty then, but right 

now I am not.

Senator Huddleston. At this time you don’t anticipate any substantial 

reprograming requirements?

General Gilbert. No, sir. As a mat ter of fact, it could go cither way.

I don ’t know. As the Cha irman knows, last year the construction 

industry really heated up with a lot of work on the street. Maybe some 

of that is beginning to get finished, and as we come into the summer 

we will have more contractors looking for jobs. I just don’t know how 

to pred ict that ye t

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Senator Huddleston. Your statement refers to $23.8 million for the 

energy conservation investment program. How much of that sum is for 

energy monitoring and control systems?

General Gilbert. We have five locations that receive these systems 

und er this program, sir, totaling $5.9 million.

Senator Huddleston. Are these systems uniform or stan dard 

commercially designed?

General Gilbert. We have deve loped tri-service specifications tha t we 

are using to procure all of these. We worked very closely with the Navy 

on this, and I have high confidence in it. It looks like a very good spec, 

and we have some very good feedback from the industry. We’re all 

using tha t same specification and buying commercially available 

standard hardware.

Senator Huddleston. Have basew ide energy studies been complete d 

at all of the locations proposed for such a system in fiscal year 1980?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir, they have, and in addition to that, Mr. 

Chairma n, under the Executive ord er on energy conservation, we are 

also about to complete our survey of every Air Force building over 

30,000 square feet to see what we can do to make it more energy 

efficient. Tha t is, an individual facility engineering survey that has been 

done on them, and as a consequence, we arc about to enter the phase 

of doing the same investigation on those tha t are from 5,000 to 30,000 

square feet.

We believe that we have a good handle on exactly what we can do 

within a reasonable cost to save energy in our existing facilities, and 

when we get through this second phase, it will be further refined.
422

We do have our first three systems that the Congress approved for 

the Air Force in operation now. They are certainly all living up to 

expectations, some exceeding it by a great amount. As you might recall, 

we were one of the early requesters of these systems, because we saw 

their value, beyond persuasion and publicity and local initiatives that 

bases might take to conserve energy, that this was the next best method 

of doing that. And it looks as though it is going to be a good program.

Senator Huddleston. You are talking abo ut a 12-percent goal in 

energy reduction by 1985. 1 understood the President is going for a 20- 

pcrcent reduction. How did you arrive at your figure?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir, I’m talking abo ut the 12 percent that we 

believe these systems will get us, and then we have another program 

through the use of 0 . & M. funds that is just fitting buildings with 

insulation and windows, relighting and so forth, that we think we’ll get 

another 5 percent. And very frankly, sir, we arc still encouraging 

commanders to come up with that other 4 percent based on the 

initiatives that they can still take on their bases.

Senator Huddleston. So you’re still actually shooting for that?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir. T hat is our goal. We think we will meet it, 

but I would be misleading the Congress if I told them that I could 

make that through this particular program. It is going to take a 

combination of the three.

FLIGHT SIMULATION FACILITIES

Senator Huddleston. The fiscal year 1980 request includes almost 

$20 million for various flight simulator facilities. Can you provide data 

for the record which will identify the flight simulator for which the 

facility is required, where it is budg eted, and when delivery of the 

simulator is expected?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir. Tha t infor mation is available. I will be 

glad to supply it for the record.

[The inform ation follows:]

Fligh t Simulator Data

Base and delivery schedule

Nu mber o f Sim ulator

simulators budget year

England (A—10):

Jun e to Octo ber 1981...............................................................

Bergstrom (RF -4C ):

Move from Shaw AFB ............................................................

Bentwaters (A-10):

Jun e to August 1981........................- ......................................

Davis-Monthan (A-10):

Jun e 1981........................................ .................... ......................

[Deleted]:

June 1981 to April 1982..........................................................

Gark (F-4G):

Move from Eglin AFB ............................ ...............................

[Deleted]:

December 1981........................................................................ „

2 1979-82

2 Prev Purchase

2 1978-81

4 1976-81

2 1978-81

1 Prev Purchase

2 1980-81
423

Flight Simulator Data—C ontinued

Base and delivery schedule

Nu mb er of 

simulation

Simulator 

budget year

Osan (F -4):

Move from Luke AF B.............................. .............................. 1 Prev Purc hase

Hom estead (F-15) :

April 1981..................................................... .............................. 2 1978-80

Kirtland (C-130):

April 1981..................................................... .............................. 1 1979-80

Griffiss (B-52):

December 1981........................................... .............................. 1 1980

Lakenhcath (F - ll l):

November 1980........................................... .............................. 1 1977

OVERSEAS CONSTRUCTION

Senator Huddleston. For overseas construction the fiscal year 1980 

budg et includes $5 million for various facilities at Roberts Inte rnation al 

Airport in Liberia. I was not even aware that we had an interest in that 

area.

What specifically are these funds for?

General Gilbert. Sir, they are primarily to provide some add ition al 

aircraft parking space at the internatio nal airport and some aircraft fuel 

dispensing and storage capacity, beyond which they have there now. 

That is the only real dependable staging area we have in the entire 

African continen t. We have had to stage MAC aircraft through there a 

couple of times, and we found that one of the greatest hold-ups there 

was the lack of park ing space and refueling capability. Right now 

they’re so limited that in some cases we have to, especially if you are 

staging C-5 ’s through there, wait for the fuel truck to run back and 

forth abo ut 35 miles one way to the refinery to fill the C-5 . And since 

it is critical to any contingency that would occur in that area, whe ther it 

be evacuation or what have you, we believe tha t we need to provide 

these min imum staging facilities for the MAC airplaftcs to that location.

Senator Huddleston. This would include storage facilities?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir, it would, and some parking space.

JOINT SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM

Sena tor Huddleston. I note that the fiscal year 1980 budget request 

of $23.3 million will complete the Join t Surveillance System, wherein 

many radar sites have been shut down or turned over to the FAA. This 

purports to save approximately 5,000 personnel spaces and $100 million 

in annual operating costs.

How many Air Force radar sites are involved in this transfer?

General Gilbert. Mr.C hairm an, there are a total of 59 sites involved 

in JSS, including 14 Air Force sites being transferred to FAA. In 

addition, we will be able to close 28 rada r stations upo n implem entatio n 

of JSS. Tire Air Force will continue to operate and mainta in 8 CO NU S 

and 13 Alaska sites under JSS.
424

Senator Huddleston. So those arc the operatio ns that will requ ire the 

Air Force costs, the ones tha t you maintain?

General G ilbert. Yes, sir. Plus, at some of the sites that FA A will 

operate, we will have five or six bluesuiters there purely and simply to 

operate the height-finder radars. FAA has no requ irem ent for heightfinders, so we will continu e to have that part of the system. And of 

course in this program arc the remaining ROCC’s that are a p art of this 

total system. Both the ROCC’s and the radar sites contrib ute to the 

reduction in opera ting costs and the man pow er savings.

PANAMA CA NA L CONSTRUCTION

Senator Huddleston. You r 1980 requ est contains $2.7 million for 

construction at Howard Air Force Base in Panama. The fiscal year 1979 

supplemental also includes $3.5 million for this base.

Could you identify for the record the specific projects associated with 

these two sums, and provide an assessment as to the urgency of the 

requirem ents assumed in the supplemental?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. That would be helpful to us. I think we will 

have a considerable amount of discussion on those projects as they 

work their way through Congress.

What addition al costs does the Air Force antic ipate as a resu lt of the 

treaty-related changes in facilities and responsibilities?

General Gilbert. With the items in the 1979 supplem ental and the 

1980 program, sir, we don’t see any more Air Force MCP costs 

associated with the treaty.

Senator Huddleston. $2.7 and $3.5 m illion?

General Gilbert. Yes, sir, plus what the Secretary of Defense 

authorized early on, ou t of his contingency funds, to build some mail 

facilities, because the Air Force did become the postmaster, so to speak 

for the Panama Canal under the treaty.

[The information follows:]

MCP Projects

In the fiscal year 1980 MCP, we have two projects for $2.7 millio n. One project is 

to relocate a communications transmitter/receiver facility onto U.S. Government 

controlled land. The land on which the existing facility is located is to be turned over 

to the Government o f Panama when the treaty takes effect. The other project is for 

recreational facilities that arc necessary for increases in personnel and dependents due 

to various U.S. organizational moves onto Ho wa rd/Albrook and Fort Kobbe as a result 

of treaty agreements. These moves have generated a critical need that must be satisfied 

if we are to provide for the continued welfare o f our people there.

In the fiscal year 1979 supplemental, we have a request to provide security facilities 

(S3.5M) at Howard AF B and Albroo k AFS in the Canal Zone. These facilities are 

required to support the A ir Force portion of the relocation and consolidations resulting 

from provisions included in the recent Panama Canal Treaty. Since the buffer zone 

now owned and covered by the Panama Canal Company, security will disappear when 

the new treaty takes effect, additional security personnel and physical security measures 

are required to provide standard requirements for the I Ioward/A lbrook complex as an 

overseas base. Also, Ho ward/Albrook is a high theft area and the additional personnel 

along with proposed physical security measures (fence, perimeter road, tower, armory, 

etc.) will reduce this risk. In addition to the increased potential for theft, the
425

ingredients for an international incident wou ld be increased as would the possib ility of 

terrorists gaining access to the complex without these additional security personnel and 

patrols.

Senator Huddleston. W hat is the status of the work ou t there?

General G ilbert. It is und er construction and coming along pretty 

well, sir. I do n’t know the percent comp lete at the mom ent.

Senator Huddleston. Will you meet the deadline requirements of the 

treaty?

General G ilbert. Yes, sir. It will. The Air Force, as you probably 

know, did n’t have many facilities that we had to vacate and build new 

ones, as the Army did. As a mat ter of fact, the Army is moving onto 

Howard and Albrook, where we are remaining. Our 1979 project is 

primarily security-related, fencing and guard towers aro und Howard, 

which is not fenced now. It is guarded by some 270 Pana manians, 

which we will lose und er the treaty.

We looked at either putting our own security police there or fencing 

the base, which is wide open. It now has local cross traffic through it. 

We came up with a combina tion which seemed to be the most cost 

effective. That is by way of saying that actually, if we had to provide 

the addition al num ber of people tha t would be required to do what we 

think the security fencing will do, it would cost us more in the end 

than the fencing would.

Senator Huddleston. Will your personnel requirements increase?

General Gilbert. No, sir. We certainly don’t antic ipate any major 

increases. It might be onesie’s and twosie’s, but nothing major. And 

then, of course, in the 1980 program, we have our recreation facility.

Senator Huddleston. Docs your mission change any down there?

General Gilbert. No, sir, not ours. It is the same mission.

Senator Huddleston. The same type of activity?

General Gilbert. Yes sir. We run a train ing school. We have some 

aircraft down there.

Senator Huddleston. Do foreign nationals also participate in tha t 

training school?

General G ilbert. Yes, sir. They come from all over South America 

for training.

Senator Huddleston. You will continue to conduct that?

General G ilbert. Yes, sir. Tha t was not impa cted by the treaty .

subcommittee recess

Senator Huddleston. Gentlem en, I think that takes care of it this 

morning. I appreciate very much your coming.

The subcomm ittee will be in recess until Thursday, when we will 

consider the Army construction program.

[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., Tuesday, March 27, the subcom mittee 

was recessed, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 1979

U.S. Sena te,

Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 2:15 p.m., in room 1223, Everett McKinley Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Walter D. Huddleston (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senator Huddleston.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Chie f of Engine ers

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. JOHN W. MORRIS, CHIE F OF ENG INEE RS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

BUDGET REQUEST

Senator Huddleston. The hearing will come to order. Today’s 

session addresses the fiscal year 1980 budget request for Army 

military construction programs. At $722.3 million, the Army’s request is the largest of the three services, which is not at all surp rising considering the relative size of its physical plant. Also not 

surprising, given the small size of the total 1980 budget, the request is considerably below last yea r’s level: About $107 million 

lower in terms of appropriation and over $160 million lower in 

terms of the program to be accomplished.

The principal witnesses in support of th e budget request will be 

Brig. Gen. William E. Read, A ssistant Chief of Engineers. In addition, we are also pleased to welcome Lt. Gen. J. W. Morris, Chief of 

the Corps of Engineers, who has offered to provide the subcommittee with an overview of past accomplishments of the military construction program and the most critical needs for the future.

Without objection, I believe tha t we might sta rt with General 

Morris’ informative presentation, after which General Read can 

address the specifics of the budget.

General Morris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PR EP AR ED ST ATE M EN T

I have prepared a longer stateme nt which I request be entered 

into the record as written.

Senator Huddleston. Without objection.

[The statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Lt. Gen. John W. Morris, Chief of Engineers, 

Department of the Army

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee; I am Lieutenant General John W. 

Morris, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. This, my first opportunity to 

address the military construction subcommittees, is for two important reasons: The 

first is to review the fruits of the outstanding support of this subcommittee to the 

Department of the Army’s annual military construction requests. The condition of 

our physical facilities and in turn the combat readiness of the forces have progressed greatly in recent years. The second reason for my appearance is to focus 

onto what lies ahead—what needs to be done to assure a quality of life for our 

soldiers and their families which will strengthen the Army’s capability to perform 

its missions. In general terms then, this year’s request focuses on those facilities 

necessary to enhance force readiness and fulfill our obligations to the individual 

soldier and his family.

Scope of Army Facilities

The Army’s facilities engineering operation is big business. Our facilities engineers maintain 174 major installations throughout the world with a work force of 

some 50,000 people. The Army real property facilities have an estimated value 

approaching $93 billion. The size of the facilities we manage can best be expressed 

by a few statistics. There are 993 million square feet of building space, 11 million 

acres of land, 2,724 miles of railroads, and other facilities and systems (water, 

electrical, sewer) which are unparalleled anywhere in Government or the private 

sector. Our annual cost for maintenance and operation is about $2 billion. When 

related to the overall base which the MCA appropriation supports, the relative 

magnitude of the annual construction requests is significantly less imposing.

Other Construction Programs

The Army Corps of Engineers also executes many other construction programs for 

the Department of Defense and the Nation.

Last Year (fiscal year 1978) our military construction execution for agencies other 

than the Army was approximately $300 million. This included work accomplished 

for the Air Force, Navy, and other DOD agencies. This slide, which shows a 

completed enlisted dorm at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii, is typical of the 

construction we perform for other services.
429

Slide 1.—Enlisted Dorm, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii

In addition to this program our overse as construction for foreign governme nts, as 

approved by the Congress and Executive Branch, exceeded $630 million. The construction value of our design work for foreign governments approximated $3.3 

billion. The work is paid for by the receiving nation. A g rea t deal of t his construction is taking place in Saudi Arabia. One of o ur larger projects in Saudi Arabia is 

the construction of a $214 million headquarters complex for the Saudi Arabia 

National Gua rd at Riyadh.

**1-638 0 - 79 - 28
430

Slide 2.—Model of Saudi Arabian National Guard Headquarters Riyadh SA—cost 

$214M

This slide, taken in March 1978, shows the main headquarters building in the 

early stages of construction.
431

Slide 3.—HQ Building—Saudi Arabian Nati onal Guard complex, 738 feet long—93 

feet wide—5 stories

The Corps’ Civil Works Program, which provides an excellen t technica l enhanc emen t base for our mil itary program as well as a mobilization reserve capability, 

included construction valued at $2,784 billion for the fiscal yea r 1978 program.

There is a strongly reinfo rcing rela tion ship between our Civil Works Prog rams 

and our Military Programs , nei the r would work as well as it does withou t the other 

and our nat ional prepare dness for na tural emergencies or war is enhanced accordingly.
432

Slide 3a

Prior MCA Programs

One of the primary goals facing the Army—indeed our watchword—is the requirement for readiness and the ability to make a transition to a war-fighting status. 

Many factors must be considered in readiness: The state of training of the individual and his unit, the state of materiel readiness, the ability of the entire force to 

mobilize, to deploy overseas, to be received in the theatre of operations and the 

sustainability of the force in combat are but a few of the requirements for readiness. 

Associated with each of these facets is the requirement for modern operations and 

training facilities, supply, maintenance and medical facilities. Without these facilities the state of readiness declines.

The Army’s ability to contribute effectively to a deterrent force hinges upon 

another important element. Trained and dedicated soldiers supported by skilled 

civilians comprise the single most important element of our force. In order to 

maintain an effective deterrent force, they must remain convinced of popular support. They must believe th at the American people recognize and support the Army’s 

mission. They must also perceive tha t their contributions to the security of the 

United States are understood and appreciated. Providing the facilities necessary to 

support an adequate quality of life for the soldier and his family is one of the most 

tangible methods by which we can show the soldier tha t he has his country’s 

support.

The Army has an inherent responsibility to ensure tha t its activities do not 

contribute to polluting the environment and to ensure tha t our share of the nation’s 

fuel reserves are wisely used. To meet these responsibilities we must improve our 

pollution abatem ent systems and operate energy efficient physical facilities.

The following is but a sample of the items provided by the Congress in recent 

years which enabled us to meet our responsibilities.

Since fiscal year 1970, the Congress has approved a total of approximately $6.2 

billion for the Army’s MILCON programs. Included in this amount is some $642 

million as the U.S. contribution to the NATO Infrastru cture Program.

One of the important achievements this has allowed has been the construction to 

improve the living conditions of our enlisted personnel.

Prior to the initiation of this effort many of our barracks facilities are typified by 

conditions depicted in the following slides.
433

Slide 4.—World War II Barracks, Fort Jackson, S.C.

Slide 5.—Open Bay Barracks, Fort Bragg, N.C.
434

Slide 6.—Open Bay Barr ack, Fort Sill, Okla.

Your support in this impor tant are a has resu lted in approxim ately $1.5 billion for 

facilities similar to the Fort Carson and Fort Hood bachelor enlisted qu art ers shown 

on th e following two slides.

Slide 7.—Fiscal y ear 1972-73 Fort Carson BEQ
435

Slide 8.—Fiscal yea r 1973 F ort Hood BEQ

The significant improvem ent in the actual living are as is evident when the living 

are as shown in the following slides are compared to the previously depicted open 

bay arrang ement.

Slide 9.—Interi or view of 3-man room
436

Slide 10.—Interior view of living room

Most assuredly we still have barracks requ irem ents , but the bulk of th is effort in 

the U nited States is behind us.

We ha've also received excellent Congressional support for the modernization of 

the Army’s medical and dental facilities to standard s necessary to provide adequate 

care for beneficiaries and to mainta in a professionally competent medical force 

capable of responding to mobilization missions.

In the past ten MCA programs nearly $700 million has been direc ted toward 

modernizing hea lth facilities.

Many of the hea lth care facilities which existed prio r to our efforts in the 

seventies were housed in tem pora ry World War II facilities sim ilar to th at shown 

here, which had neither the space nor the tech nical capability to provide the 

required hea lth care. The crowded conditions which were prevalent in many of 

these old su bstandard facilities is depicted by this slide.
437

Slide 11.—Typical medical facility housed in World War II building

Slide 12.—Typical waiting room

Our physicians have had to deliver babies in facilities similar to t he delivery room 

at Fort Lewis, Washington, depicted on this slide.
438

Slide 13.—Delivery room—Madigan Army Medical Cente r—Fort Lewis, Wash.

During this period five new hospitals totalin g $188.8 million have been constru cted. These are located at Forts Gordon and Benjamin Har rison, Walter Reed Army 

Medical Center, West Point and Redstone Arsenal. Three other replacemen t hospitals at Forts Campbell, Polk, and Stewar t are und er construction at a cost of $126 

million. A total of 33 dental clinics estimated at $45.5 million have been funded 

during this period. This will result in 95 percent of th e CONUS dental clinics being 

housed in permanen t facilities.

The following slides provide dramatic evidence of the improvement:
439

Slide 14.—Walte r Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C.

Slide 15.—U.S. Military Academy Hospital, West Point, N.Y.
440

Slide 16.—Dental Laboratory—Fo rt Richardson, Alaska

While not enjoying the same degree of visibility given medical facility construction, the upgrade of mainten ance facilities throug hout the Army is directed toward

f

iroviding us with the facilities necessary to mainta in a combat ready posture, 

mprovement of the conditions in which the soldier works is one of the Arm y’s more 

impor tant endeavors.

Inadequate maintenance facilities con trib ute to a reduced sta te of read iness jus t 

as surely as morale or discipline problems. In fact, the deterio ration of r eadiness is 

more insidious tha n some of the oth er more noticeable problems. The best soldier 

hesitates to perform adeq uate mainte nan ce if he has to get down on his back in the 

mud to check or install an item. If he doesn’t hes itate the first time he will after a 

few dozen times with no relief in sight. He will also pro crastin ate if he has no 

heated mainte nance space at his home base and is required to service his vehicle in 

the snow or without adequate lighting or exh aust systems. Proper lead ersh ip and 

motivation can reduce the problem but, in a peacetime operation which exists for 

years, it cannot el iminate the problem.

Our efforts have been directed toward replacin g the old substanda rd mainte nance 

facilities sim ilar to those shown on the following slides:
441

Slide 18.—Old Shops a t Fort Stewart, Ga.

In the past ten years we have applied approximately $350 million toward the 

improvement of maintenance facilities. An example of a modem maintenance complex is shown in the following slide:
Slide 19.—Tactical Equipment Shop—Fort Riley, Kans.

These new facilities a re well planned, have adequate hardstands and are sized to 

accommodate the wide variety of equipment in our combat and combat support 

units. The interior of a typical maintenance facility is well-lighted, adequately 

heated, and contains adequate vehicle exhaust systems and overhead cranes for 

removal of engines and other heavy components.

Slide 20.—Tactical Equipment Shop—Structural and concrete masonry building 

with hardstand area
443

Slide 21.—Interior view of pre-engineered tactical equipment shop showing 

overhead crane

I have received many favorable comments from commanders regarding the significant improvements we are starting to see in our maintenance facilities. I know they 

consider, just as I do, these facilities to be an integral part in the effort to keep our 

forces combat ready.

The last area I would like to discuss relates to our efforts to enhance the Energy 

Conservation and the Pollution Abatement Programs. While the Army has historically been concerned with the conservation of our unrenewable resources and the 

elimination of pollution, the past ten years has seen these endeavors becoming a 

significantly greate r portion of our construction program.

Various funding procedures are employed for reducing energy consumption in 

existing facilities. Local OMA funds, minor MCA funds and regular MCA programs 

are being utilized. However, the major funding is being achieved through the 

dedicated MCA Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) which you have 

been supporting.

In the past four years ECIP projects approximating $158 million have been MCA 

funded. The following slides show uninsulated flooring and uninsulated attic space.
44 4

Slide 22.—Uninsula ted floor boards in building—Fort Jackso n, S.C.
445

Slide 23.—Uninsulated attic—Fort Riley, Kans.

These conditions are exceptable only when energy is plentiful and cheap. Other 

initiatives in this program include weatherstripping, heating and air conditioning 

maintenance and control systems, solar heating, lighting system revisions and installation of heat recovery systems. While these improvements are being provided, 

we are taking other conservation actions which have reduced our consumption by 

approximately 28 percent since 1973.

The Army has accorded high priority and devoted substantial resources to solve 

our air and water pollution problems. We have found the problems to be enormous

41-6 38 0 - 7 9 - 2 9
446

from both technical and adm inis trative standpoints. The standard s being set have 

often exceeded the state-of-the-art and have forced us to expa nd the technological 

capability necessary to ens ure compliance. This is particularly tru e at our ammunition production plants. Some a dm inis trative problems have been beyond our control, 

for example, some regional sewage tre atm ent systems in which we are participating 

are behind scheduled compliance date s or not yet und er construction.

We have received $447 million in MCA for pollution aba tem ent since fiscal yea r 

1970. Approximately 60 percent of the approved work has been completed. Although 

we have made progress in aba ting pollution, the rate of progress is not as fast as we 

would like and a reintens ification of the Army pollution aba tem ent program has 

been necessary. Therefore, in April of last yea r I initiated a systematic survey of 

every Army installation, every Reserve cen ter and every applicable National Gua rd 

facility in the United States.

The results were worth the effort. Over 800 potential problem s were identified. Of 

those, 300 require some cons truction to achieve compliance, while ano the r 300 have 

been identified for more detailed study. The fiscal yea r 1980 MCA Program reflects 

a 50 percent increase from the pre-survey prog ram of last yea r as we have tried to 

program every recently form ulated project th at could be effectively obligated in this 

year’s program.

The slides you have jus t seen represent the degree of c ontrast which is found in 

the facilities throughout the Army. This slide of a rece ntly completed chapel at F ort 

Hunter-Liggett, Calif., typifies one of the basic goals of our construction progra m. 

From an overall stan dpoint modest, well-constructed facilities which are easily 

maintained and provide adequate living and working conditions for our personnel 

will in the long ru n enhance our force readiness.

Slide 24.—Chapel—Fort Hun ter-L iggett, Calif.

Fiscal Year 1980 MCA

As you progress with you r review of the fiscal yea r 1980 Military Construction 

Program, I th ink you will agre e th at i t is a carefully s tru ctu red program form ulated 

to provide the facilities necessary to meet the Arm y’s primary objective of force 

readiness. Brigadier Gen eral Read, the Assistant Chief of Engineers, will provide 

the details of this ye ar’s construction request; however, I would like to briefly 

compare the magnitude of this ye ar’s program versus last ye ar’s and highlig ht some 

of the imp ortant facets of the fiscal year 1980 request.
447

If you consider last year’s approved program plus the contingency funds for

Panam a ($10.9 million) and the presently proposed 1979 supplemental, ($70 million), 

our fiscal year 1979 program amounts to approximately $835 million. The total 

appropriation request this year, which includes general authorization items but 

excludes ammunition production facilities, is $722.3 million and is approximately 

$113 million less th an our total program from fiscal year 1979. Consequently, only 

the most crucial items have been retained for your consideration. Upgrade of 

maintenance facilities continues to be an important area of concern for which we 

are requesting $109 million. In an effort to provide better living and community 

facilities for our soldiers we are requesting $129 million for projects such as new 

barracks at Fort Ord and Fort Campbell. We are requesting $45 million for the 

energy conservation program and $151 million to comply with the statutory requirements related to pollution abatement.

Our request for Army projects in Germany is approximately $150 million which is 

about $110 million below tha t requested last year. I would like to emphasize that we 

have carefully reviewed our European program in accordance with last year’s 

Congressional guidance and have eliminated those items which might be considered 

eligible for financing by the NATO Infrastructure Program.

While this discussion of the fiscal year 1980 MCA request is purposefully very

?

general, I think you will agree tha t this budget submission is quite austere and 

dcuses on force readiness, facilities to support the soldiers’ quality of life and 

meeting the Army commitment with respect to energy conservation and preservation of the environment.

Future Requirements

I would truly like to say tha t our military construction requirements for the 

future will, for the most part, be accommodated after this fiscal year; however, both 

you and I know th at will not be the case. There are still too many temporary World 

War II and other substandard facilities in use throughout the Army. These must be 

phased out and replaced with permanent facilities. Technological advances will also 

force us to build or modernize in order to accommodate new weapons systems. Other 

initiatives necessary to demonstrate our national resolve to retain an adequate 

defense will require facilities. We must also continue our programs for conserving 

energy and minimizing pollution. Technological advances in these areas will give us 

a capability to do a better job, but will require funds.

Our requirements are continually being screened to ensure tha t only the most 

valid projects are submitted for your approval.

Summary

In summary, you have provided the Army’s militaiy construction program with 

over $6 billion during the past ten years which we feel has been widely used to 

enhance the overall combat readiness of the Army. I assure you the leadership of 

the Army appreciates your support. Our future requests will include only those 

items which are considered essential for the well-being of the United States as a 

whole. Naturally, there wall always be some subjective areas regarding the validity 

of various projects; however, I assure you it is our desire to resolve any reservation 

you may have regarding any aspect of our military construction program.

I earnestly solicit your continued support in providing suitable facilities necessary 

to enhance readiness and the living and working conditions of our soldiers as well 

as funds for our pollution abatement and energy conservation programs. These 

latter elements are vital if the Army is to remain a leader in the Nation’s march 

toward a pollution-free environment and energy self-sufficiency.

This concludes my statement. I thank you for this opportunity to discuss the 

Army’s Military Construction Program. General Read and I will be happy to answer 

your questions.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Lt. Gen. J ohn W. Morris, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army

Lieutenant General John W. Morris, a native of Maryland and a 1943 graduate of 

the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, became the 44th Chief of Engineers of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in July 1976.

General Morris is the engineer advisor to the Army Chief of Staff and the 

engineering-construction agent for the Departments of the Army and Air Force. He 

is currently in charge of a major nation-building program in Saudi Arabia which is 

fully funded by that government.
448

He is also responsible for the Corps of Eng ineers’ nationwide program for the 

development and man agem ent of our national water resources.

During his career which span s more tha n thr ee decades he has commanded troops 

at every level from platoon to a sep arate brigade. His broad experience in water 

resources man agem ent dates back to 1952 when he was Deputy District Engineer in 

the Corps’ Savannah District. Later, as District Eng ineer at Tulsa, Oklahoma, he 

completed several key elem ents of the McClellan-K err Ark ansas River Navigation 

Project and subse quently served as the Corps’ Missouri River Division Engineer.

As Director of Civil Works for three years in the early 1970’s he took major 

initiative in support of the new emerging nat ional prio rities on envi ronmen tal 

quality and energy.

Gene ral Morris holds a Ma ster ’s Degree in civil engineerin g from the University 

of Iowa and is a registered Professional Engineer in O klahom a.

Through General Morris, the Corps has been recognized as a national engineering 

asset. Engineering News-Record selected him as Con struction’s Man of th e Year for 

1977 for the Corps’ work in Saudi Arabia, the American Society of Value Engineers 

made him Honorary Vice Preside nt for Corps lead ersh ip in Value Engineering, and 

the American Society of Civil Engineers presented him to Parcel-Sverdrup Civil 

Engineering Man agem ent Award for 1977.

He also received in 1977 National Humanitarian Award from the National Recreation and Parks Association and the unique Distinguished Master Builder Award 

from the Carpe nte r’s Com pany of Philadelphia, the firs t awa rd in the 2% cen tury 

histo ry of that pretigious, conservative organiz ation.

Gene ral Morris is married to the former Geraldine King Ludwig of W ilmington, 

North Carolina. They have two children.

REVIEW OF FUNCTIONS OF CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

General Morris. With your permission, I will make a brief oral 

statem ent.

Since this is my first appearance before the Military Construction Subcommittee, I thought it might be helpful to briefly review 

my functions as Chief of Engineers, and in so doing to emphasize 

the principal importance of each of these functions to our priority 

responsibility of serving the Army.

United States Army

Corps of Engineers

... Se rv in g the A rm y

... Se rv in g the Na tion

[Slide 1]

Simply stated, the Corps of Engineers supports thre e customers: 

the total Army, th e Nation, and friendly governments.
449

CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

UNITED STATES ARMY

A. MA ’••-1

MILITARY

1

CIVIL INTERNATIONAL

SUPPORT TO THE SUPPORT TO SUPPORT TO FRIENDLY

TOTAL ARM Y THE NATION GOVERNMENT.1

[Slide 2]

The total value of these three programs approaches $9 billion.

MILITARY -$ 2.5 BILLION

CIVIL WORKS -$ 3.0 BILLION

FOREIGN MILITARY SALES

(SA UDI) -$ 1.9 BILLION

REAL PROPERTY MA INT ENANCE

(OMA) -1 .3 BILLION

TOTAL FUNDS -1 8. 7 BILLION

[Slide 3]

First, support to friendly governments is in effect nation-building 

and tran sferring engineering, construction and environmental 

knowledge and technology learned in more than 150 years of involvement in the development of the United States and over 200 

years in support of the Army.

This slide gives you a brief resume of the kinds of tasks we are 

discussing with foreign countries in addition to the ongoing major 

investment program in Saudi Arabia.
450

CO

POTFNTIAI PROGRAMS:

• Korea - Development of the Han River

• Nigeria - Navigation on the Niger River

E

• Saudi Arabia - Sporls Complex

CO PRLFF ASIBIIITY STUDIFS:

— ■....... . ......... .... ' 1

 " .................... O) • Qatar - Dredging Study of Ports

o • Oman - Study of Mater Supply

• Saudi Sudan - Environmental Impact of Mining the Red Sea

• Gabon - Navigation. Ports and Roads

s CONEACIS: (requests for inform ation and disiussions)

09 • PRC • Philippines • Hong Kong

• Thailand • Brazil • Somalia

-

• Indonesia • Peru • Liberia

• Egypt • Macau • Yemen

• Pakistan

[Slide 4]

Senator Huddleston. Are these programs under construction 

now?

General Morris. No, sir. Those in the top box are firm, and the 

ones in the middle box are ones that could lead to work, and the 

lower group are what amount to little more than opening discussions with those countries. However, all those above that went 

through the same process.

Senator Huddleston. What kind of sports complex are we building in Saudi Arabia?

General Morris. It turns out we may not build that at the last 

minute. The idea was, though, tha t that was going to be a $300 

million sports complex for all the people of Saudi Arabia. It would 

involve a race track, many athletic fields, and olympic-size swimming pools. The track was to be built for camels, incidentally. A 

grea t public athletic facility.

Senator Huddleston. Are they shelving the project?

General Morris. No, sir. We would have gotten the job, as a 

matter of fact, except we do our work throu gh the State Department. The State Department was not able to get the necessary 

documentation in time to meet the Saudis’ schedule, so they have 

gone ahead and arran ged with a Saudi Arabian architectural firm. 

The negotiations are still open, but frankly I th ink it is pretty well 

lost.

Senator Huddleston. All right, sir.
451

JlIl CIVIL

Ir PROGRAMS

• NA VIGA TIO N • RECREATION

• FLOOD CONTROL • ENVIRONMENT

• HYDROPOW ER • REGULATORY

• WATER SUPPLY

FUNCTIONS

• DA M SAFETY

• W ORK FOR OTHERS

[Slide 5]

General Morris. Next, support to the Nation. The development 

and management of the Nation’s w ater resources, including navigation and flood control, hydroelectric power, et cetera. In addition to 

the water management role, the Army Engineers serve the Nation 

as directed by the Congress or the President to resolve numerous 

national problems requiring engineering solutions. Among them 

have been the space and postal construction programs, ongoing 

national program of inspection of non-Federal dams, helping EPA 

with their wastewater gran ts program, and assisting the Department of Energy in the strategic petroleum reserve program.

The military program includes support to the total Army and 

investments for the Air Force and, in some areas of the world, for 

the Navy. Our support to the Army, however, goes beyond engineering and construction management to include staf f and command responsibilities associated with support on the battlefield, 

support in garrisons, support during mobilization, and the execution of special tasks.
452

• Support on the Battlefield

• Support in Garrison

• Support during Mobilization

• Special Tasks

[Slide 6]

As Chief of Engineers, I have prepared an analysis of what I 

believe the Army expects of its engineers. This rat her busy chart 

summarizes those expectations. I would like to draw your attention 

to the support in the garrison column, and particula rly that under 

real property.

W hat Does th e A rm y Expect of its Engine er s?

General I n p Tasks MCA

ONA

PsrBSMMl Acquisition

War Conversion

Plans

Emergency Ops

Plena

Orgn. in Being

Continuing

Peacetime

Tasks

Support Reserve

and NG

R I D

Assist Foreign

Gov'ts, w/Mil

Construction

(FMS)

Topography

Disposal

CSS •<

[Slide 7]
453

In the past 2 years we have made grea t progress in life cycle 

costing and in balancing the tradeoffs between main tenance and 

construction. However, much room remains to be accomplished. As 

the Army’s real property manager I am directly responsible only 

for those items bracketed, but I do have staff responsibility and 

management interest in the rest of the items shown.

Before leaving this chart, I would like to emphasize that our 

ability to fulfill the Army’s expectations during mobilization is 

directly related to the peacetime mission, and the nationwide organization afforded the Armed Forces in a civil program, which I 

have already mentioned.

To accomplish these three programs—international, national and 

military, I have two principal directorates: one for military programs and one for civil works programs. These are shown in the 

center here on the lower line.

[Slide 8]

The foreign construction falls into whichever of these two is most 

appropriate to the type of work being performed.

United S ta te s Arm y 

Co rps of Engin eers

...Se rv in g the Arm y •

...Se rv ing the N ation

CONT ENTS .

1. Three nets of the Chief of Engineers

2. Staff Organisation • •

3. Command Organisation

41 Engi neer Family

3. Curre nt Budget

6. Divisions and D istricts for Civil Works Activities

7. Divi sions and Districts for Militar y C onstruction A ctivities

8. Mil ita ry Construc tion Organisation Overseas

9. What the Army Expects of Its Engineers

10. What the Natio n Expects (Water Rel ated Resources)

11. For eign Programs

12. Interrelationships of Civi l and Military Programs

13. The Importance of Civil Wo rks for Military Engineers

4k.

tn
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

UNITED STATES A RM Y

MILITARY

SUPPORT TO THE

TOTAL A RM Y

CIVIL

SUPPOR T TO

THE NATION

INTERNATIONAL

SUPPOR T TO FRIENDLY

GOVERNMENTS

ENGINEER COMMAND ORGANIZATION

14

41
TH E ENG IN EER F A M IL Y .

. MILITARY ENGINEERS

ACTIVE ARMY ... 43,000

RESERVE COMPONENTS . 91,000

FACILITIES ENGINEERING

MILITARY 2,400

CIVILIAN 48,600

CORPS OF ENGINEERS COMMAND

MILITARY 800

CIV IL IA N 39,5 00

THE ENGINEER FAMILY 225,300
ENGIN EER PROGRAM

FU ND IN G F Y 7 9AVAIL ABLE FUNDS

MILITARY -$2.5 BILLION

CIVIL WORKS -$3.0 BILLION I

FOREIGN MILITARY SALES

(SAUDI) -$1.9 BILLION

REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE

(OMA) -1.3 BILLION

TOTAL FUNDS -$8.7 BILLION
DIVISIONS AND DISTRICTS for CIVIL WORKS ACTIVITIES

NORTH PACIFIC

NEW r \ 

ENGLAND)

I lie A l. n k a n u l i i e l ll c m h p ii M ie n ,

Anchor age. Alaska. i i included in

die Ninth Pacilic Division. VALLEY

SOUTH ATLANTIC

*>■

The Shite ol II aw mi oral I II.nidi in

die P.icilic me included in Honolulu

Dn hict, Pacilic Ocemi Division, with

Hemliiuaiters at Honolulu. Hmvaii.

The Territory ol Puerto Rico andadjacent Islands is included In

Jacksonville District, SouthAtlantic Division. . *

— D ISTRICT BOUNDARIES

■ DIVISIO N HEADQUARTERS

• DIST RICT HEADQUARTERS
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION DIVISION DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

05to

S u pport on

EJ oW efleld

§0i&© A r m y E x p e c t o ff I t s EFBggBtraccs’s T

M obiliz ation Specia l T asks

S upport In

-G arr is on

Planning the Ba ttle' 

Execution 

Mobility

Countermobility 

Survivability 

Goneral Engr Tasks 

Readiness 

Porsortnol

Real Property Mgmt 

Requirements

. Stationing 

- Master Planning 

Programming

MCA 

OMA • 

Acquisition

AD Real Estate

RC Real Property

M °

s Opn/Malntenance

Equipment BMAR

Annual Maint. 

Disposal

W in F ir s t EJattie

EnergyEnvironment

Q uality o f

Sold ie r Life

War Conversion 

Plans

Emergency Ops 

Plans

Orgn. in Being

Continuing

Peacetime

Tasks

Support Reserve 

and NG

R & D

Assist Foreign 

Gov’ts, w/MII 

Construction 

(FMS)

Topography

2

Pre par ed nes s

. to Fig ht

Looking Fo rw ar d

& Filling th e Gap s

SUPPORT TOTAL ARMY
Wii'iiat croes w

e s^sraoini i&xpeciE off 54s Array Erssineeirs? (Water Related Resources)

S ound

S o lu ti o n s . ' .

With in Current •

‘ Law & Policy

En gine eringly

Foasiblo

En vir on men tally & 

So cia lly Ac ce ptab le

Ec on om ica lly

Ju stifiod

Pu blicly Su pported 

Pu blic Involvoment

Provessco roa Bis m

C o m p e t e n t

.P ro g ra m 

E x e c u tio n

Programming 

Authority 

Priorities

Design

Acquisition

Construction

Financial Mgmt

Environmental

Awareness

Informed Public

“ (Q ualit y •• 

P ro d u c t

E ff e c ti v e 

S te w a rd s h ip

Regulate Resources 

Land (Wetlands)

.Water Quality 

Fis h & W ild life 

Waterways 

Public Welfare

Operate Projects

Au thorized Purpo ses 

Intended Benefits 

Public Access & Use 

Pu blic Safety

Main tain Projo ct 

Efficiency'

’ C u s to m e r

S a ti s fa c ti o n R espcnsiv ^r sos!

. Sp ecia l

TasBcs

R & D

Emer. Opns 

Mobilization 

. Dam.Safety 

Spt Fed 

Ag en cies

As st Foreign Govts K

Pu blic & 

Professional 

Aw areness

Em ployee

Opportunities/ Development

ascn
foreign programs

PO TEN TIAL PROGRAMS:

• Korea - Develop men t of the Han River

• Nigeria - Naviga tion on the Niger R iv er,• Saudi Arabia - Sports Com plex

PREEEASIBILITY STUDIES:

• Qat ar - Dred ging Study of Ports '

• Om an - Study of Wat er Supply

• Saud i/Sud an - Environ mental Impact of Mining the Red Sea

• Gabon - Navigation, Ports and Roads

(requests for information and discussions)

• Philippines • Hon g Kong

• Brazil • Somalia .

• Peru . • Liberia

• Macau •Y em en

CO NT AC TS :

• PRC

• Thailand

• Indonesia• Egypt

• Pakistan
(J 7?

M IL IT A R Y

• Qu ality Management

• Periodic Rotation of Leadership

• Responsive Chain of Com mand • /

. • Pub lic Im ag e S C IV IL

P R O G R A M PRO GRAM

...

• Mo biliza tion Support

• Tra in in g

C • Technic al Enhance ment

• Rec ru itin g

• Na tionwide Presence

isi

^ 7 - — SUPPORT TO THE TOTAL ARMY 

SUPPORT TO THE NATION
THE IMPORTANCE OF CIVIL WORKS FOR MILITARY ENGINEERS

S e c re ta ry of th e Army Fr an k Pace, J r . ' s vi ew s (195 2) 

to th e. im port ance of C iv il Works fo r m ilita r y e n g in e e rs :

The pro ve d b e n e f its in World War I I of th e 

in d iv id u a l e n g in e e r o f f i c e r - tr a i n i n g a ff o rd e d 

- by p a r t i c i p a ti o n in la r g e - s c a le c i v i l wo rks ; . 

pr og ra m s we re n o t lim it e d to th e s u p e r io r ity 

of Our m ilita r y e n g in e e ri n g e f f o r t b u t we re a ls o evid enced by th e do m in an t p a rt whi ch • o f f i c e r s tr a in e d in t h i s sy stem p la yed in th e alm ost m ir a cu lo u s l o g i s t i c su p p o rt a ff o rd e d ou r Ar mi es ar ou nd th e g lo b e . Alm os t a l l key 

p o s i t io n s in t h i s l o g i s t i c a l o r g a n iz a tio n — ’ 

wh ich in m ag nitude has no p a r a l le l in th e 

w o rld ’s h is to r y — we re hel d by o f f i c e r s who 

had be en d evelo ped la r g e ly by th e ir tr a in in g 

in th e p e a c e ti m e c i v i l w or ks o r g a n iz a tio n o f 

'• th e Army Cor ps of E n g in eers and o th e r p o s itio n s of g r e a t r e s p o n s i b il it y to which, th ey we re c a lle d because of th e c a p a c itie s which 

th e ir p re v io u s tr a in in g in th is f ie l d had 

g e n e ra te d . * T h at th ey would have be en ab le 

in such numb ers and to su ch a hig h degre e 

to develo p su ch c a p a c itie s th ro ugh any " d e t a il sy st em " or th ro u g h an y agency o th e r th a n 

one o rg a n ic to th e Cor ps i t s e l f is h ig h ly •• q u e s ti o n a b le .
469

Let me tur n now to the fiscal year 1980 Military Construction 

Army Program. The primary goal of the Army is readiness. Many 

factors influence readiness, and important among them is the requirement for modern operations, modern train ing, modern supplies, maintenance and medical facilities designed to include capable pollution abatement and energy conservation systems. Without 

such facilities the quality of life of our soldiers and the ir families 

suffers; training and equipment availability decline; and, in turn, 

state of readiness is reduced.

Funds appropriated by this committee in recent years have gone 

far to reach the standards sought. Some before and after examples 

will illustrate this point. Barracks for our soldiers for some time 

after World War II looked like these three slides we will show you. 

Many of us remember those. However, a t a half billion dollars and 

some years later, our barracks now look like this, with pleasant 

interiors.

The medical and dental facilities also for many years used World 

War II structures: crowded, understaffed and underequipped. But 

almost three -quarters of a billion dollars and 10 years later, we 

have added 8 new hospitals and 33 dental clinics to the real property inventory, and here is a sample of those at Walter Reed. This is 

the hospital at the Military Academy at West Point, and here is 

the interior of one of the laboratories. The facilities for the maintenance of military equipment traditionally and for years were open 

sheds. Now we have centralized main tenance which will accommodate a unit’s equipment, such as this structure, with fully equipped 

interiors for the kind of maintenance to be done.

Besides the functional aspects of these projects, we a re tryin g to 

build structures which are also esthetically acceptable. This chapel 

at Hunter Liggett in California recently won the National Architecture Award because of its a daptability and its usefulness.

In summary, you have provided the Army’s military construction 

programs with over $6 billion during the past 10 years. These have 

been used to enhance the overall combat readiness of th e Army. I 

would like to be able to say that our military construction requirements will be accommodated afte r this fiscal year, however, tha t 

will not be the case. There are still too many temp orary World 

War II and other substandard facilities in use throughout the 

Army. These must be replaced and phased out.

Technological advances will also force us to build and modernize 

in order to accommodate new weapons systems. We must also 

continue our programs for conserving energy and minimizing pollution.

Of course, our requirements are continually being screened to 

insure that only the most valid projects are submitted for your 

approval. For part, I intend to execute the program in a man ner 

which will bring the readiness of the Army and the welfare of our 

soldiers and families to the highest levels possible with the funds 

provided by th e Congress.

This concludes my statement. I th ank you for this opportunity to 

discuss the Army’s military construction program. General Read 

and I will be happy to answer your questions later.

Now I will turn it over to General Read.

Senator Huddleston. General?

U l- 6 3 8 0 - 7 9 - 3 0

Corps o f E n g in e e r s

A s s is t a n t C h ie f

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. WILLIAM E. READ. ASSISTANT CHIEF OF

ENGINEERS, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEER S, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ACCOMPANIED BY:

MR. ALLEN M. CARTON, PROGRAMING DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE

ASSISTANT CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

COL. CLARENCE D. GILKEY, FACILITIES ENGINEER, U.S. MILITARY

ACADEMY, WEST POINT, N.Y.

COL. NEAL H. WALLS, DIRECTOR, HEALTH FACILITIES PLANNING

AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF

THE ARMY

MR. PATRICK J. SIGLEO, INSTALLATIONS PLANNING DIVI SION ,

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT

OF THE ARMY

LT. COL. GEORGE R. IVERSON, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SUPPORT,

ADJUTANT GENERAL CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

LT. COL. GERALD A. VICK, PROGRAMING DIVISIO N, OFFICE OF

THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE

ARMY

MAJ. KEARNEY W. CRISSMAN, RDTE PROGRAMS AND BUDGET DIV ISION, OFFICE, DEPUTY CHIE F OF STAF F FOR RESEARCH, DEV ELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

LT. COL. MARVIN R. MURRAY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT CHIEF

OF STAF F FOR AUTOMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

PREPARED STATEMENT

G e n e r a l R e a d . S ir , I li k e w is e h a v e a s t a te m e n t th a t I w o u ld li k e

to p la c e in th e record .

S e n a to r H u d d l e s t o n . W it h o u t o b je c ti o n , it w il l b e p la c e d in th e

record in it s e n tir e ty .

[T h e s t a te m e n t fo ll ow s: ]

(471)
472

Prepared Statement of Brig. Gen . William E. Read

ASSISTANT CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

Mr. Cha irman and Members of Che Con inittee :

I am B ri g a d ie r G en er al W ill ia m E. Read, A s s is ta n t C hie f of E ngin eers , O ff ic e 

o f th e Chi ef of E ngin eers , De partm ent of th e Army.

I am p le ase d to appea r b efo re th is Comm ittee to p re s e n t th e De partm ent of th e 

Arm y'8 p o rt io n of th e annual M il it a ry C onst ru cti on A pp ro p ri ati o n re q u e st.

Our re q u e st fo r f i s c a l year 1980 In clu des $722 ,3 00 ,0 00 In t o ta l o b li g a ti o n a l 

a u th o rit y ; a l l o f th is Is new o b li g a ti o n a l a u th o rit y . Our com panion re q u est fo r 

a u th o riz a ti o n to ta ls $7 49 ,5 90 ,0 00 and in clu d e s $8 2,9 90,0 00 fo r Ammunition F a c ilit ie s fo r wh ich we a re not re q u e sti n g fu ndin g. The fu nd in g fo r Ammunition F a c ilitie s i s in clu ded in th e Pr oc urem en t of Am munition, Army a p p ro p ri a ti o n re q u e st. Of 

th e t o ta l re q u e s t, 66 .5 p e rc e n t, or $4 80,2 30,0 00 , is fo r c o n str u c ti o n w it h in th e 

U ni te d S ta te s . About 22.2 p e rc e n t, or $1 60,3 70 ,0 00, is fo r c o n str u c ti o n o u ts id e th e 

Uni te d S ta te s , p ri m a ril y in Eu rope. The re m ai nin g 11.3 perc en t in clu d es $8 1, 70 0, 00 0 

fo r G en er al A u th o ri z a ti o n , (d esig n , ex ig en t mi no r c o n str u c ti o n and acc ess ro a d s).

Our re q u e st fo r f is c a l yea r 1980 is appro xim ate ly $161 m il li o n le s s th an th e 

ap pr ov ed TOA p lu s th e su pp le m en ta l fo r f i s c a l year 19 79. Thi s re p re s e n ts an 18 

perc en t decre ase com pared to f is c a l ye ar 1979. A d d it io n a ll y , th is y e a r’s program 

co n ta in s $1 95 ,8 20 ,0 00 fo r en er gy c o n se rv ati o n and p o ll u ti o n ab at em en t p ro je c ts , 

some $3 8, 07 0, 00 0 more th an th e FY 79 ap prov ed amount f o r th e se two a re a s .

Our m il it a r y c o n str u c ti o n program th is year em ph as iz es c o n str u c ti o n to imp rov e 

re a d in e ss , com bat c a p a b ility , and imp rov ement o f f a c i l i t i e s . Exc lu di ng G en er al 

A u th o ri z a ti o n , 32 p erc en t o f ou r re q u est is to imp rov e re a d in e ss and combat ca pa ­

b i l i t y w hile 24 p e rc en t is fo r housi ng, com mu nity, and m ed ic al f a c i l i t i e s and 37 

p erc en t is fo r p o ll u ti o n ab at em en t, en er gy c o n se rv a ti o n , and u t i l i t i e s .

Most of our o v ers eas c o n str u cti o n i s d ir e c tly re la te d to im pr ov ing ou r re a d ine ss an d liv in g c o n d it io n s fo r s o ld ie rs in Eu ro pe . Of th e $1 60 ,3 70 ,000 fo r 

overs ea s c o n str u c ti o n , $149 ,5 00 ,0 00 , o r 93 p e rc e n t, is fo r c o n str u c ti o n in Europ e 

and th e re m ai nd er is fo r c o n str u c ti o n in Kor ea , Ja pan, Panama, and K w aj al el n.
473

TABLE I - PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 19 80 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY PROGRAM

Command C ost

U n it e d S ta te s Army F o rce s Command

U n it e d S ta te s Army T ra in in g an d D o c tr in e Command 

U n it e d S ta te s D ev elop m en t and R e a d in e ss Command 

U n it e d S t a t e s Army M ilita r y Academy

U n it e d S t a t e s Army C om m unic at io ns Command 

M i lita r y T r a f f ic Managem ent Command

U n it e d S ta te s Army H e a lt h S e rv ic e s Command 

M ilita r y D i s t r i c t o f W as hin gto n

T o ta l I n s id e th e U n it e d S ta te s

$ 1 9 5 ,6 8 0 ,0 0 0

8 6 ,2 9 0 ,0 0 0

1 3 8 ,2 2 0 ,0 0 0

1 3 ,5 6 0 ,0 0 0

9 ,6 4 0 ,0 0 0

3 5 ,4 0 0 ,0 0 0

1 ,0 9 0 ,0 0 0

350,0 00

$ 4 8 0 ,2 3 0 ,0 0 0

OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

E ig h th U n it e d S ta te s Army

N a ti o n a l M is s ile R an ge , K w aja le in

U n it e d S ta te s Arm y, Euro pe

4 ,6 1 0 ,0 0 0

2 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0

1 4 6 ,7 0 0 ,0 0 0

U n it e d S ta te s Array, Japan 2 ,7 0 0 ,0 0 0

U n it e d S ta te s Army I n t e l l i g e n c e and S e c u r ity Command 2 ,8 0 0 ,0 0 0

U n it e d S ta te s Army F o rce s Command

T o ta l O u ts id e th e U n it e d S ta te s

6 6 0,0 00

$ 1 6 0 ,3 7 0 ,0 0 0

OTHER

G e n era l A u th o r iz a tio n :

P la n n in g

M in or C o n s tr u c tio n (E x ig e n t L o c a ti o n s o n ly )* 

A ccess Ro ads

5 3 ,7 0 0 ,0 0 0

2 6 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

T o ta l O th e r $ 8 1 ,7 0 0 ,0 0 0

T o ta l O b llg a tio n a l A u th o rit y R equeste d $ 7 2 2 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0

New O b llg a tio n a l A u th o rit y R eq u este d $ 7 2 2 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0

*M in or c o n s tr u c tio n p r o j e c t s a t know n lo c a tio n s (th o s e p r o j e c t s c o s tin g 

l e s s th a n $500,0 00) t o t a l i n g $ 2 7 ,0 8 0 ,0 0 0 a r e in c lu d e d i n th e t o t a l .

T h is In c lu d e s $ 2 0 ,7 0 0 ,0 0 0 in th e U n it e d S t a t e s , $ 1 ,4 6 0 ,0 0 0 i n K o re a, 

$ 4 ,7 0 0 ,0 0 0 in German y, and $220 ,0 0 0 in I t a l y . Th e t o t a l m in o r c o n s tr u c ­

tio n r e q u e s t i s $ 2 6 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 f o r u n fo re s e e n c o n s tr u c tio n re q u ir e m e n ts and 

$ 2 7 ,0 8 0 ,0 0 0 f o r s p e c if i e d lo c a tio n s o r a m in or c o n s tr u c t io n t o t a l o f 

$ 5 3 ,0 8 0 ,0 0 0 .

T a b le I I sh ow s th e c o n s tr u c t io n c a t e g o r ie s i n w hic h th e fu n d s a re 

re q u e s te d an d th e p e rc e n ta g e o f th e c o n s tr u c t io n d o l l a r s in e ac h c a te g o ry
TABLE I I - PROPOSED FISC AL YEAR 19 8 0 MILITAR Y CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

PROGRAM SUMMARY BY CONSTRUCTION CATEGORIES

C o n s tr u c t io n C a te g o r y 1 /

E x c lu d in g

G e n e r a l

A u t h o r i z a t i o n

P e r c e n t 

o f T o t a l

O p e r a ti o n a l 8. T r a i n i n g F a c i l i t i e s $ 5 7 ,8 2 9 ,0 0 0 9 . 0 8 .0

M a in te n a n c e a n d P r o d u c ti o n

F a c i l i t i e s 1 0 9 ,4 7 0 ,0 0 0 1 7 .1 1 5 .2

R e s e a r c h , D ev elo p m en t a n d T e s t

F a c i l i t i e s 2 0 ,3 1 0 ,0 0 0 3 .2 2 .8

S u p p ly F a c i l i t e s 3 8 ,9 2 0 ,0 0 0 6 .1 5 .4

H o s p i t a l a n d M e d ic a l F a c i l i t i e s 2 6 ,2 3 0 ,0 0 0 4 . 1 3 .6

A d m in i s t r a ti v e F a c i l i t i e s 7 1 0 ,0 0 0 0 0

H o u sin g a n d C om m un ity F a c i l i t i e s 1 2 9 ,2 0 0 ,0 0 0 2 0 .2 1 7 .9

U t i l i t i e s an d G ro u n d Im p ro v e m e n ts 2 3 8 ,0 6 1 ,0 0 0 3 7 .2 3 3 .0

W a te r P o l l u t i o n A b ate m en t ( 1 1 6 ,5 7 0 ,0 0 0 ) ( 1 8 .2 ) ( 1 6 .2 )

A ir P o l l u t i o n A b a te m e n t ( 3 4 ,3 7 0 ,0 0 0 ) ( 5 .4 ) ( 4 .8 )

E n e rg y C o n s e r v a tio n ( 4 4 ,9 7 0 ,0 0 0 ) ( 7 .0 ) ( 6 .2 )

U t i l i t i e s ( 4 2 ,1 5 1 ,0 0 0 ) ( 6 .6 ) ( 5 .8 )

R e a l E s t a t e 1 9 ,8 7 0 ,0 0 0 3 .1 2 .8

G e n e r a l A u t h o r i z a t i o n 8 1 ,7 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 1 .3

T o t a l O b l i g a t i o n a l A u t h o r i t y $ 7 2 2 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0

V M in o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t s ( t h o s e p r o j e c t s c o s t i n g l e s s th a n $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 ) 

a r e i n c lu d e d i n t h e t o t a l s f o r th e v a r i o u s c o n s t r u c t i o n c a t e g o r i e s .

The t o t a l m in o r c o n s t r u c t i o n r e q u e s t i s $ 2 6 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 f o r

u n f o r e s e e n c o n s t r u c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d $ 2 7 ,0 8 0 ,0 0 0 f o r s p e c i f i e d 

l o c a t i o n s m in o r c o n s t r u c t i o n , f o r a t o t a l o f $ 5 3 ,0 8 0 ,0 0 0 .
475

FY 80 MCA PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

OPERATIONAL AND TRAINING FACIL ITIES

Our r e q u e s t f o r $ 5 7 ,8 2 9 ,0 0 0 f o r o p e r a tio n a l an d t r a i n i n g f a c i l i t i e s I s 

r e q u ir e d to im pro ve r e a d in e s s . We a r e r e q u e s tin g $ 2 9 ,4 3 9 ,0 0 0 (5 1 p e r c e n t) fo r 

o p e r a tio n a l f a c i l i t i e s and $ 2 8 ,3 9 0 ,0 0 0 (4 9 p e r c e n t) f o r t r a i n i n g f a c i l i t i e s . The 

o p e r a tio n a l f a c i l i t i e s in c lu d e upgra de o f a i r f i e l d f a c i l i t i e s , co m m unic at io n 

f a c i l i t i e s an d o p e r a tio n a l b u ild in g s . T r a in in g f a c i l i t i e s in c lu d e b u ild in g s 

re q u e s te d f o r th e i n tr o d u c tio n , t r a n s i t i o n and t r a i n i n g f o r th e P a t r i o t A ir 

D efe nse S yste m , th e F ie ld A r t i l l e r y TACFIRE Sy st em and th e XM1 ta n k . In c lu d e d 

in t h i s c a te g o ry i s $ 1 2 ,4 5 0 ,0 0 0 , a t Su nny P o in t , N o rt h C a r o lin a , f o r f a c i l i t i e s 

to p ro v id e th e c a p a b i l i t y f o r am m unitio n o u tl o a d in g a t t h a t p o r t . The t o t a l 

am ount o f money f o r th e a n m u n it io n p o r t f a c i l i t i e s a t Su nny P o in t , N o rt h C a r o lin a , 

i s $ 3 3 ,0 3 0 ,0 0 0 .

MAINTENANCE FACIL ITIES

Th e f a c i l i t i e s w hic h w i l l b e p ro v id e d by o u r r e q u e s t fo r $ 1 0 9 ,4 7 0 ,0 0 0 w i l l 

d i r e c t l y im pro ve o u r re a d in e s s p o s tu re f o r u n i t s in th e U n it e d S ta te s an d E u ro pe. 

W it h in CONUS, th e r e q u e s t in c lu d e s $ 5 6 ,9 3 0 ,0 0 0 f o r f iv e t a c t i c a l equip m ent m ai nte n a n c e f a c i l i t i e s , a n o n d lv is lo n a l d i r e c t s u p p o r t m ain te n an c e f a c i l i t y , an d a 

c o n s o lid a te d m a in te n an c e f a c i l i t y and $ 1 1 ,3 5 0 ,0 0 0 f o r a i r c r a f t m a in te n an c e f a c i l i ­

t i e s . The pro gra m f o r u p g ra d in g m a in te n an c e f a c i l i t i e s in Ge rmany in c lu d e s fo u r 

p r o j e c t s c o s tin g $ 2 7 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0 . S e v e n ty -o n e p e r c e n t o f th e r e q u e s t in t h i s c a te g o ry 

($ 7 7 ,7 6 0 ,0 0 0 ) i s f o r f a c i l i t i e s in th e U n it e d S t a t e s .

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT & TEST FACIL ITIES

Th e r e q u e s t f o r $ 2 0 ,3 1 0 ,0 0 0 i s f o r t h i r t e e n p r o j e c t s a t e ig h t lo c a t i o n s .

The f a c i l i t i e s s u p p o rt th e A rm y' s c o n ti n u in g e f f o r t to d e v e lo p , t e s t and f i e l d 

m od ern wea po n sy st em s to mee t f u tu r e n e e d s .

SUPPLY AND STORAGE

In c lu d e d in th e re q u e s t o f $ 3 8 ,9 2 0 ,0 0 0 f o r tw en ty -t w o p r o j e c t s in t h i s a re a 

a r e f i v e p r o j e c t s f o r $ 1 6 ,4 6 0 ,0 0 0 a t Su nn y P o in t , N ort h C a r o lin a . T hese f iv e 

p r o j e c t s a r e p a r t o f th e o v e r a l l r e q u e s t o f $ 3 3 ,0 3 0 ,0 0 0 fo r f a c i l i t i e s r e q u ir e d 

f o r am m unitio n s h ip p in g from t h a t p o r t f a c i l i t y . The p r o j e c t f o r $ 5 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0 f o r 

am m unitio n u p lo a d in E uro pe i s to p ro v id e f a c i l i t i e s to im pr ove th e c a p a b i l i t y to 

lo c a te th e r e q u ir e d am m unitio n w it h th e t a c t i c a l u n i t s . T h is i s re q u ir e d to 

im pr ov e th e a b i l i t y o f th e u n its to r e a c t a c c o rd in g to o p e r a tio n a l r e q u ir e m e n ts . 

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL FAC ILIT IES

The r e q u e s t f o r tw e lv e p r o j e c t s , c o s ti n g $ 2 6 ,2 3 0 ,0 0 0 , in c lu d e s fu n d s fo r 

d e n ta l c l i n i c s , h e a l t h c l i n i c s , re n o v a ti o n o f a m e d ic a l w are house and a h o s p i t a l 

annex a t W il li a m Be aumo nt Army M edic al C e n te r a t F o rt B l i s s , T exas. T h is annex 

i s r e q u ir e d to p ro v id e th e n e c e s s a ry o u t p a t i e n t s e r v ic e s a t t h a t h o s p i t a l . C e r ta in 

o u tp a tie n t s e r v ic e s a r e c u r r e n tly lo c a te d in m u ltip l e aged f a c i l i t i e s and r e s u l t in 

i n e f f i c i e n t u se o f th e m e d ic al p e rs o n n e l an d eq u ip m e n t.

ADMINISTRATIVE FACIL ITIES

T h is c a te g o r y in c lu d e s two p r o j e c t s f o r a t o a l o f $ 7 1 0 ,0 0 0 . The p r o j e c t f o r 

m o d if ic a tio n o f a d m in is tr a tiv e f a c i l i t i e s a t F o r t L eavenw ort h i s r e q u ir e d to o b ta in 

in c r e a s e d e f f i c i e n c y in o p e r a tio n s .

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY FAC ILIT IES

The tw e n ty -e ig h t p r o j e c t s , c o s ti n g $ 1 2 9 ,2 0 0 ,0 0 0 , to p ro v id e h o u s in g an d 

co mmun ity f a c i l i t i e s , in c lu d e s $ 1 0 8 ,7 7 0 ,0 0 0 f o r tr o o p h o u sin g and s u p p o rt f a c i l i ­

t i e s an d $ 2 0 ,4 3 0 ,0 0 0 f o r com nunlty f a c i l i t i e s . S ix te e n p r o j e c t s , c o s tin g 

$ 8 1 ,4 8 0 ,0 0 0 , a re lo c a te d in th e U n it e d S t a t e s ; e le v e n , c o s tin g $ 4 7 ,4 5 0 ,0 0 0 , a re 

in German y, an d on e f o r $ 2 7 0 ,0 0 0 , i s in K ore a. The $ 7 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0 In c lu d e d f o r K ore a
476

Re alignm en t A c ti v it y i s to pro vid e f a c i l i t i e s fo r U nit s a t lo c a ti o n s in th e U ni te d 

S ta te s when f in a l s ta tio n in g pla ns a re ap pr ov ed . Alth ou gh th is item i s c a rrie d 

in th e housi ng and community f a c i l i t i e s c a te g o ry , i t may be re q u ir e d fo r p r o je c ts 

in th e most c r i t i c a l c a te g o rie s . S ix of th e b a rra c k s p ro je c ts in Germany a re to 

pro vid e necessa ry liv in g sp ac e fo r e n lis te d p ers o n n el to su pport th e In cre ased 

a r t i l l e r y prog ram fo r Germ any.

ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM

The $4 4, 97 0,0 00 re q u e ste d fo r th e en er gy c o n serv a ti o n in ves tm en t prog ram i s 

fo r th irty - n in e p ro je c ts w ith $3 0, 01 0, 00 0 in ves tm en t in th e U ni te d S ta te s an d 

$1 4, 96 0, 00 0 In German y. The p ro je c ts in th e U nited S ta te s in clu d e im prov em en ts in 

in s u la tio n , h e a ti n g sy st em s, en er gy c o n tr o l and m onit ori ng sy st em s, and in c re a se d 

e ffic ie n c y in p ro v id in g h o t w ate r. In Germany, th e p ro je c ts a re p rim a ril y re la te d 

to th e au to m at io n o f h e a ti n g sy stem s to o b ta in g re a te r e ffic ie n c y in th e us e of 

fu e ls and to re duce p ers o n n el c o s ts .

WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT

The $1 16 ,5 70 ,0 00 fo r w at er p o ll u tio n ab at em en t in clu d es f i f t y p ro je c ts in th e 

U ni te d S ta te s an d Germany. The la r g e s t number of p r o je c ts , f o rty - fo u r , co sti n g 

$1 09 ,5 00,0 00, i s to c o rre c t p o llu ti o n pr ob lem s a t am mu nit ion p la n ts , d e p o ts , and 

m ilita ry p o sts th ro ughout th e U ni te d S ta te s . Six p ro je c ts fo r $7,0 70, 000 are to 

c o rre c t w at er p o llu tio n prob lem s in Germ any.

AIR POLLUTION

The fo u rt e e n a i r p o ll u tio n p r o je c ts , c o s ti n g $34,3 70,0 00, a re p rim a ri ly 

lo c a te d a t am mun ition p la n ts and d epots . A ll of th e p ro je c ts a re lo c a te d in th e 

U nited S ta te s .

UTILITIES

The re q u e st fo r $4 2, 15 1,0 00 fo r u t i l i t i e s p r o je c ts co ver s th e e n tir e sp ec trum 

of u t i l i t y p r o je c ts , in c lu d in g e l e c t r i c a l po we r, re pla ce m en t of h e a ti n g sy stem 

co mpo ne nts, ro ad p r o je c ts , and f i r e s a fe ty and al ar m sy st em s. The la r g e s t p ro je c t 

i s th e re pla ce m en t o f d e te rio ra te d b o ile r s a t Red Riv er Ammunition D ep ot , a t a 

co st o f $8,6 00,0 00, wh ich w ill a ls o pro vid e th e c a p a b ility to us e wood as a f u e l.

Of th e th ir ty - th r e e p r o je c ts , tw en ty-two p r o je c ts , c o sti n g $2 8,1 90,0 00, are in th e 

U ni te d S ta te s , nin e p r o je c ts , a t a c o st o f $10,8 61,0 00, a re in Eu ro pe , and th e 

re m ai ni ng two a re lo c a te d in Korea fo r $2 00 ,0 00 an d th e N ati o n al M is sil e Range a t 

K w aj al ei n fo r $2,9 00,0 00.

REAL ESTATE

The $1 9, 87 0, 00 0 re q u este d fo r r e a l e s ta te p u rc hase s is a t fiv e lo c a tio n s . The 

purc has e of la nd fo r $2 ,8 00, 00 0 a t Blossom P o in t i s re q u ir e d , sin c e th e la nd ca nn ot 

be re tu rn ed to i t s o r ig in a l s ta te w it hout a more ex pen si ve o p e ra ti o n to c le a r i t of 

dud ro un ds and s e n s itiv e ex p lo siv e s. The purc h ase s a t Wh ite Sands M is sil e Ra nge, 

F o rt P o lk , and F ort B lis s are fo r s e c ti o n s of la nd wh ich ha ve be en le a se d fo r many 

y ears an d are re q u ir e d to co nti nue re q u ir e d tr a in in g o p e ra ti o n s.

SUMMARY

In summ ary, our f i s c a l yea r 1980 M ili ta ry C o n str u c ti o n Army prog ram is 

molded to impro ve re a d in e s s , to pro vid e ad eq uat e liv in g c o n d it io n s fo r ou r 

s o ld ie r s , and to com ply w it h p o ll u tio n ab at em en t re q u ir em en ts . This re q u e st 

co n ta in s th e h ig h e s t p r io r i t y item s to im prov e re a d in e ss and impro ve f a c i l i t i e s 

fo r ou r s o ld ie r s and th e ir fa m il ie s .

We have made a s in c e re e f f o r t to en su re th a t th e p ro je c ts re q u este d in th is 

pro gram a re re sp o n siv e to th e ne ed s o f th e Army an d a re f a c i l i t i e s wh ich w ill 

pro vid e se rv ic e over th e lo ng term .

T his co ncl udes my p re s e n ta ti o n of th e Arm y's f i s c a l year 1980 M il it a ry 

C o n str u cti o n A p p ro p ri ati o n s re q u e s t. As in p re v io u s yea rs , th e d e ta ile d p ro je c t
477

j u s t i f i c a t i o n s u p p o rti n g o u r r e q u e s t i s c o n ta in e d in th e m a te r ia l w hic h h a s been 

f u r n is h e d to th e C om m itte e. The p r o j e c t s a re a rra n g e d in command an d s t a t i o n 

s e q u e n c e .

I w i l l be p le a s e d to an sw er an y q u e s ti o n s th e C om m itt ee may h a v e , o r to 

s e e t h a t an sw ers a r e p ro v id e d .

BIO GR APHIC AL SKETCH

BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM E. READ

B r ig a d ie r G e n e ra l W il li a m E. Re ad wa s b o rn on 17 May 1927 in C h a r lo tte , N o rt h 

C a r o lin a . He wa s com m is si oned in th e Army C or ps o f E n g in e e rs fo ll o w in g g ra d u a ti o n 

fr om th e U .S . M ilita r y Acad emy in 1950.

Ue h o ld s a m a s t e r 's d e g re e in c i v i l e n g in e e r in g fr om th e U n iv e r s ity o f 

I l l i n o i s an d on e in b u s in e s s a d m in is tr a tio n fr om W ebste r C o ll e g e , S t. L o u is , 

M is s o u ri. He i s a g ra d u a te o f th e US Army Coimnand and G e n e ra l S t a f f C o ll e g e an d 

th e Army War C o ll e g e an d has a tte n d e d th e Adv an ced Manag em en t Pro gra m a t H arv ard 

U n iv e r s ity .

G e n e ra l R e a d 's s e r v ic e w it h e n g in e e r tr o o p u n i t s h a s in c lu d e d to u r s in 

V ie tn am a s co nm an de r o f th e 1 5 th E n g in e e r B a t t a l i o n , 9 th I n f a n tr y D iv is io n an d 

w it h e n g in e e r u n i t s in E u ro p e. D uri ng h i s second a ss ig n m e n t in V ie tn am d u ri n g 

1970 an d 1971, he com man ded th e 4 th I n f a n tr y D iv is io n S u p p o rt Command an d Tas k 

F o rc e Iv y .

H is a ss ig n m e n ts have In c lu d e d to u r s a t th e U n it e d S t a t e s M il i t a r y Ac ad em y, a s 

an a s s i s t a n t Army A tt a c h e in I s r a e l , w it h th e Army S t a f f an d J o i n t S t a f f , as th e 

D i s t r i c t E n g in e e r a t T u ls a , Okl ah om a, w it h th e U .S . Army A v ia ti o n Syst em s Coimnand 

a s th e D ep ut y Cor an an de r, an d a s th e D iv is io n E n g in e e r o f th e M is s o u ri R iv e r 

D iv is io n .

On 15 S epte m ber 1978 , G e n e ra l Read was a s s ig n e d to th e O f f ic e o f th e C h ie f o f 

E n g in e e rs w it h d u ty a s th e A s s is ta n t C h ie f o f E n g in e e rs .
478

BUDGET REQUEST

General Read. I am pleased to appear before the committee to 

present the Department of th e Army’s portion of the annu al construction appropriation request. Our request for fiscal year 1980 

includes, as you indicated, $722,300,000 in total obligational authority. All of this is new obligational authority.

Our companion request for authorization totals $749,590,000 and 

includes $82,990,000 for ammunition facilities for which we are not 

requesting funding. The funding for ammunition facilities is included in the procurement of ammunition Army appropriation request.

Of the total request, 66.5 percent or $480,230,000 is for construction within the United States. About 22.2 percent, or $160,370,000 

is for construction outside the United States, primarily in Europe. 

The remaining 11.3 percent includes $81,700,000 for General Authorization, design, exigent minor construction and access roads.

Our request for fiscal year 1980 is approximately $161 million 

less than the approved TOA plus the supplemental for fiscal year 

1979. This represents an 18 percent decrease compared to fiscal 

year 1979. Additionally, this year’s program contains $195,820,000 

for energy conservation and pollution abatement projects, some 

$38,070,000 more than the fiscal year 1979 approved amount for 

these two areas.

Our military construction program this year emphasizes construction to improve readiness, combat capability, and improvement of facilities. Excluding General Authorization, 32 percent of 

our request is to improve readiness and combat capability while 24 

percent is for housing, community, and medical facilities and 37 

percent is for pollution abatement, energy conservation, and utilities.

Most of our overseas construction is directly related to improving 

our readiness and living conditions for soldiers in Europe. Of the 

$160,370,000 for overseas construction, $149,500,000, or 93 percent, 

is for construction in Europe and the remainder is for construction 

in Korea, Japan, Panam a, and Kwajalein.

In summary, our fiscal year 1980 military construction Army 

program is molded to improve readiness, to provide adequate living 

conditions for our soldiers, and to comply with pollution abatement 

requirements. This request contains the highest priority items to 

improve readiness and improve facilities for our soldiers and the ir 

families.

We have made a sincere effort to insure that the projects requested in this program are responsive to the needs of th e Army 

and are facilities which will provide service over the long term.

This concludes my presentation of the Army’s fiscal year 1980 

military construction appropriations request. As in previous years, 

the detailed project justification supporting our request is contained in the material which has been furnished to the committee. 

The projects are arran ged in command and station sequence.

I will be pleased to answer any questions the committee may 

have, or to see tha t answers are provided.
479

GENERAL BUDGET ADEQUACY

Senator Huddleston. Thank you, General. In hearings on the 

Navy and the Air Force budgets we have heard that inflationary 

pressures have severely impacted on the 1979 program, and reprograming is to be expected. What is the situation with the Army?

General Morris. Sir, I believe from a programmatic standpoint 

our situation is similar to the Navy’s and th e Air Force’s.

Senator Huddleston. What is the extent of the problem if dollar 

devaluation is excluded?

General Morris. Based on current estimates, we anticipate a 

funding short fall of approximately 7 percent on the fiscal year 

1979 MCA program of about $5 million at the end of the year.

Senator Huddleston. Do you anticipate major reprograming in 

the future?

MA GNITU DE OF REPR OGRAMIN G

General Morris. Yes, sir. I th ink we have got our programing in 

fairly good shape, but I must say, I expect we will have reprograming.

Senator Huddleston. Do you have any idea of the magnitude?

General Morris. I can tell you more of the conditions tha t would 

generate them than I can of the magnitude.

Do you have a nything to add on the amounts?

General Read. No, sir. I thin k it is a little early for us to give a 

full amount. We would be glad to project one for the record, if you 

would like.

Senator Huddleston. I th ink t ha t would be helpful.

General Read. All right, sir.

[The information follows:]

Fiscal Year 1979 MCA Programing Magnitude

As it relates to specific reprograming requirements for the Army’s fiscal year 

1979 military construction program, we are not sufficiently far enough into the 

execution of this program to project the exact number of projects or the associated 

dollar amounts tha t will be affected. There are three extremely important factors or 

conditions tha t can be described which will, almost unequivocally, force us to 

undertake significant reprograming actions. These conditions relate to the increased 

inflationary pressures being experienced in the fiscal year 1979 program cost estimates, the adverse effects of the foreign currency fluctuations on the Army construction program in Europe, and the significant new obligational authority reductions imposed by the Congress in the fiscal year 1978 and 1979 programs.

Our experience to date indicates tha t the cost estimates on the fiscal year 1979 

program are exceeding our programed amounts by approximately seven percent. 

This is above the normal inflation rates which were included for the projects as they 

were being prepared for submission to Congress in the fall of 1977. Should this 

experience continue, the program will be impacted on the order of $45 million.

Another factor which will force us to undertake reprograming actions is the 

detrimental impact resulting from adverse foreign currency fluctuations. The apC

roved fiscal year 1979 program for Germany approximates $199 million and was 

udgeted at a rate of 2.24 German Marks per Dkillar. Although we are hoping for 

some relief through the fiscal year 1979 Supplemental, passage of this request is 

uncertain. If the currency devaluation item within the supplemental is not passed 

and the German Mark/Dollar exchange rate remains at approximately 1.85, the 

shortfall will be on the order of $42 million.

The last factor which will force the Army to reprogram in order to execute the 

fiscal year 1979 program is the obligational authority reductions imposed on the 

Army in fiscal years 1978 and 1979. The Army’s obligational authority was reduced 

in fiscal year 1978 by $86 million. This reduction was precipitated by the congressional desire to offset prior year and anticipated future savings. In addition, the
480

fiscal yea r 1979 obligational authority was reduced $22,473 million to accommodate 

potential savings. The anticipated savings have not materialized.

These thr ee factors are the most significant elem ents which will force reprog ram ­

ing to take place prior to the completion of t he fiscal year 1979 Military Construction, Army program. Not only will these factors con tribute to reprograming actions, 

they may cont ribu te to cancellatio n of a significant portion of the fiscal yea r 1979 

Military Construction, Army program.

IMPACT ON FISCAL YEAR 1980 BUDGET

Senator Huddleston. If the present rate of inflation and dollar 

devaluation continue, what will be the impact on the fiscal year 

1980 budget? Aren’t you assuming only a 6-percent inflation rate?

General Morris. The inflation rates are the same ones provided 

the Office of Management and Budget. I think they used 6V2 percent. No, it is 7, and 6^4 next year.

General Read. Yes, sir. We had 7.8 percent for 1979 and 7 

percent for 1980, and 614 percent for 1981 when we prepared our 

budget this year. If we assume a couple of percent higher inflation 

rate than wha t’s been used in the budget guidance, it would impact 

our fiscal year 1980 program, by about $30 million.

I th ink the other potential problem for the fiscal year 1980 MCA 

program is the budget guidance, which included the use of 2.09 

Deutsch Marks to the dollar. If we continue with the curren t 

exchange, which is 1.85, then this shortfall on our roughly $150 

million program in Europe could be about 11 percent or about $15 

to $20 with an average of $16 million.

ENERGY CONSERV ATIO N

Senator Huddleston. I hope you are not too overly optimistic 

with your figures.

You are requesting almost $45 million for energy conservation 

projects next year. How much of this request is associated with 

energy monitoring and control systems?

General Morris. It is about $7.4 million, sir.

Senator Huddleston. Have base-wide energy consumption stud ­

ies been completed at those locations planned for energy monitoring and control systems?

General Morris. Not all, sir. Many of them have ongoing studies. 

We have gotten enough information to include the data at hand.

Senator Huddleston. Are these control systems of a standard 

design?

General Morris. The crite ria are standard. The design varies 

somewhat based on the hardw are that is available. We have had 

several conferences to establish the base data desired, and how it 

would be compiled. The difference has to be, as I say, in the 

hardware.

General Read. I think another consideration, of course, is every 

installation is going to be unique unto itself; although the standard 

criteria is going to have to be blended to the individual base needs.

Senator Huddleston. Who supplies the systems once you determine th e criteria?

General Read. We get them by contract. We have architect/ 

engineers design them. We provide the criteria.
481

Senator Huddleston. What is the average amortization period 

for all of your energy conservation projects?

General Morris. Four and a half years, I believe.

General Read. That is right, 4.6 years. This is for the 1980 

program.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

Senator Huddleston. I am always struck by the amount each of 

the services spend on pollution abatem ent. You are requesting over 

$150 million. How much has been appropriated to date for a ir and 

water pollution abatement, and what is the outlook for th e foreseeable future?

General Morris. Sir, to date we have had about $476 million 

appropriated, of which $110 million is for air and about $366 million for water. I would like to elaborate a little bit on what tha t 

figure means. We call it air and water pollution abatement, but 

some of it is just a fundamentally good water system, too.

But on the other hand, there is through out the Army, particularly in our industrial plants, a rat her serious problem. As you mentioned, we have $150 million for fiscal year 1980, and we project an 

equal amount for the 4 following years, of about $600 million 

additional.

Senator Huddleston. Do you thin k that would do it if they don’t 

change the standards?

General Morris. No, sir. I jus t thin k that will get us pretty close 

to it. On the other hand, if we don’t get it done by then, we are 

going to be in trouble because the law says we have to be ready.

Senator Huddleston. Are you in violation now at any of your 

bases?

General Morris. Several States have given us notices.

Senator Huddleston. You have been cited?

General Morris. Yes, sir. We know, for example, from a survey 

which we have conducted, tha t, in July we will be in violation of 

the allowed period at a relatively large number of our installations. 

15 of them are fairly serious, because being indu stria l plants, the 

violation could require us to stop production. It could mean shutting down th e plant in order to be incompliance with the law. The 

rest of the installations have problems, but they are functional 

things that could be closed without stopping base operations. We 

are not in too good a shape.

The only thing I can say with some encouragement is I think we 

know exactly what our problem is, because we did some good work 

in the last year. We know how to go about solving that.

TROOP HOUSING

Senator Huddleston. You are requesting $109 million for troop 

housing and support facilities. Is this primarily upgrading existing 

facilities to current standards? How much is for new facilities?

General Read. Sir, the amount we are asking is predom inantly 

for construction of new facilities. Only 2 of the 16 barracks projects 

involve upgrading of existing ones.

Senator Huddleston. Is this because you have so many old buildings tha t you just can’t reha bilitate some of them?

>♦1-638 0 - 79 - 31
482

General Read. No, sir. I think it is a combination of factors. In 

this particular year, one of the drivers in European construction is 

the introduction of some new personnel to augment our artillery 

forces. This requires some new construction.

Some of the others, though, are to replace some of the World 

War II facilities at some of our major installations with more 

modern facilities.

Senator Huddleston. To what standards are the barracks being 

constructed, and how does this differ from the other services?

General Read. The standards we design to are those tha t are 

spelled out by the Department of Defenses. All the services adhere 

to the same standards. Of course, we will have variations in design, 

but it is the same square footage.

Senator Huddleston. You may have more people in one room, 

although each one is assigned the same am ount of space?

General Read. Actually, DOD criteria gives us a certain number 

of square feet th at controls the space.

We build, of course, to the space authorized. When we man the 

facilities, if we have all lower graders, then they would fill up the 

total number of spaces. But if we had some of our more senior 

enlisted personnel there, then instead of having, say, three to a 

room, it would be two to a room. In some cases, the very senior 

noncommissioned officers that are not married, would have an 

individual room.

General Morris. Our barracks have 270 square feet in a room. So 

if you put th ree privates in there with 90 square feet apiece, th at is 

right. If you put two non-coms in, they get 135, or one senior noncom, he gets the whole thing for 270.

I think the difference with the Air Force is they just put two in 

every room.

Senator Huddleston. How many troop spaces will the fiscal year 

1980 request accommodate?

General Read. It is 6,700, sir. This is at the 90 square feet.

Senator Huddleston. And you have an estim ate of the remaining deficit that you are working on?

General Read. Sir, we have had reports from our commands of 

roughly 25,000 spaces in CONUS. We have validated 5,000 of these 

through surveys and on-site visits.

Our command in Europe has identified a deficit of about 25,000 

also. That does not include the new initiatives. In Korea we have a 

deficiency of 18,000 spaces for units currently in Korea. These 

figures have not been validated by surveys at this time. Of course, 

prior to the inclusion of a project in the program, we make the 

requisite surveys to insure that they are proper.

SU NN Y POINT, N.C.

Senator Huddleston. Now, another point. The fiscal year 1980 

budget includes $33 million for various ammunition port facilities 

at the Sunny Point Military Ocean Terminal in North Carolina. I 

assume these projects are all interrelated. What specifically is the 

program at Sunny Point designed to do?

General Read. Sir, there is a need to outload both great bulk and 

containerized cargos simultaneously there. Presently the terminal
483

can actually outload eith er the containers or break-bulk. The DOD 

goal is to be able to outload 1,000 containers per day on the east 

coast. The present capability is 500 containers per day.

Additionally, the increased capability is necessary to meet the 

surge ammunition outloading requirements which have been identified in our Joint Chiefs of Staff approved strategic mobility requirements program for 1983.

Senator Huddleston. Are these projects related entirely to wartime requirements?

General Read. I think I will ask, if I may, Colonel Lanham, who 

is from our transportation organization, to address that.

Colonel Lanham. Mr. Chairman, these requirements are prim arily related to wartime and are designed to handle the project total 

ammunition requirement for all services within the first 180 days 

of a NATO war. During this period, the east coast ammunition 

ports must be capable of outloading approximately 32,000 tons per 

day. Sunny Point will be required to handle 20,000 tons of this 

total. All of the facilities will be used during peacetime; as you can 

imagine, not to the extent they would be in wartime.

We have a current problem, in that the container restuffing 

operation is done in a rat her primitive facility and is currently 

done under waiver from DODs explosive safety standards. Of the 

projects here before you, one of the projects would correct this 

deficiency.

Further , Sunny Point is the prim ary peacetime outloading port 

for most of th e ammunition to support our deployed forces, and is 

used for the shipments in support of foreign military sales and the 

buildup of prepositioned stocks.

Senator Huddleston. So they will be extensively used in peacetime, although not to the full capacity?

Colonel Lanham. Not to the full capacity, sir.

Senator Huddleston. Hopefully we won’t have to use them at 

their full capacity.

Colonel Lanham. Yes, sir.

Senator Huddleston. Do these several projects comprise a package, or can they be recommended separately?

Colonel Lanham. Sir, the several projects do make up a package. 

They cannot be partially reduced without affecting or constraining 

the throughput capability of the terminal. Each one of them is 

linea r in natu re, interdependent, and a member of one of th e four 

subsystems that comprise what we term a vessel support system. 

That is, all the facilities needed by the port to load one vessel. 

These subsystems are cargo inprocessing, in transit holding, cargo 

outloading and empty vehicle clearance.

The capability of each vessel support system is limited by the 

most restrictive of these subsystems. They are more critical for the 

ammunition ports than they are for those handling general cargo, 

because of the explosive safety requirements.

We have carefully analyzed each of the subsystems and developed projects to overcome the deficiencies that we found in our 

analysis. Collectively the projects are what is needed to realize the 

full potential of existing facilities and meet our outloading requirements.
484

Senator Huddleston. Will the $33 million request complete the 

job?

Colonel Lanham. Sir, it will complete the basic program. There 

will be other projects. We have submitted a project to the Army for 

1981. But this will complete our basic outload requirement program.

General Read. I thin k tha t is the key, sir. This will complete 

tha t part of the program, which is designed to bring the part up to 

the capability that we are seeking. The others that would be in the 

out years are minor in nature, administrative buildings and things 

of that nature.

OVERSEAS PROGRAMS

Senator Huddleston. Since NATO support and Far East programs have already been subjects of separate hearings, we won’t go 

into those further today. There remains, however, a fairly significant program of $146 million planned for Germany. With a few 

exceptions such as $5.1 million for ammunition upload facilities, 

almost all of th is request seems associated with national requirements, or the basic needs of m ilitary facilities regardless of thei r 

location. Is this impression accurate? Are any other projects 

NATO-related?

General Read. Yes, sir. In a sense all of the projects we have are 

NATO related. The reason we are there is to fulfill our commitment to NATO. We have a number of projects that are not eligible 

for NATO funding, or those that might not make good economic 

sense for the United States to ask NATO to fund. It wouldn’t be in 

our best interests.

Now, the first category might be the barracks which are not 

authorized for NATO funding. I would like to comment on the 

ammo upload that you identified. That is an uploading to increase 

our operational readiness. It really is the relocation of the basic 

load which is not authorized for NATO funding. It also falls in the 

category that our study showed it would not be in our best interests to fund this infrastruc ture. We would end up paying more out 

than we would by doing it nationally.

Senator Huddleston. I see. Now, on th e barracks, you mentioned 

most of these would be new construction. This is due to changes in 

personnel levels?

General Read. Yes, sir. Our artillery augm entation program has 

been the real driver there.

Senator Huddleston. Is part of it for upgrading some of the 

older quarters?

General Read. Yes, sir, some of it is, but the preponderance is 

new.

Senator Huddleston. What is the size of the increased personnel 

that you expect?

General Morris. We will have to provide that, sir.

General Read. It is about 4,300 more spaces.

Senator Huddleston. If the troop level should become stable at 

the new level, how much more would be required to house unaccompanied personnel in adequate barracks?
485

General Read. As I indicated earlier, the reports that we have 

are that we have about 25,000 to house adequately. We estimate 

that would cost about $120 million.

Senator Huddleston. The 25,000 in Europe?

General Read. Yes, sir.

HOHENFELS CONSTRUCTION

Senator Huddleston. I know that one project identified a “simulated city.” W hat is that, Hohenfels?

General Read. Yes sir, Hohenfels.

Senator Huddleston. Would you elaborate on that $3.1 million 

project?

General Read. The basic construction we have here is for a 

facility that is about three blocks wide, and six blocks deep. It will 

be of concrete and masonry construction, and will resemble a typical portion of a German city. The facility will be kept in a usable 

state by using what we term safe ammunition, firing munitions 

that wouldn’t destroy it, and by using explosive devices rather than 

full-scale explosions. We anticipate it being of very substantia l 

quality. The streets within it will be paved so th at we will be able 

to move our tanks, APC’s, and other equipment throu gh them.

It will have sewers and tunnel construction so tha t small teams 

of soldiers could move through those the same as they would in a 

town proper. What this really does is give us the capability to have 

our soldiers train for combat operations in cities. Because of the 

large built up areas in Europe, we feel tha t is extremely critical for 

us.

Senator Huddleston. That might be the biggest simulato r we 

have got on board by now.

General Read. Sir, I am anxious to go through that one, when it 

gets finished.

POW ERPLANT CONVERSIO N

Senator Huddleston. I also note a half dozen projects or so 

dealing with some form of upgrade of coal plants. Does this involve 

conversion from some other energy source?

General Morris. It is mostly conversion from oil to coal.

Senator Huddleston. Is t ha t in Germany, too?

General Morris. Yes.

General Read. We have an awful lot of old boilers over there and 

this program is really important. We need to continually look at 

those things and upgrade them. There are tremendous economies 

associated with some of these by virtue of the fact that we have a 

number of them that must be individually serviced. We are going 

to be able to, at Augsberg for example, consolidate 30 coal and nine 

oil fired burners into two coal fired burners. That is very helpful to 

us.

Senator Huddleston. Is coal readily available?

General Read. We get a lot of it from the United States.

Senator Huddleston. We ship a lot of it over there from Kentucky, hopefully.

General Morris. A lot of it from Pennsylvania, too.
486

HARDSTAND PAVIN G

Senator Huddleston. From the number of projects indicating 

either hardstand or paving, it would seem that we might be able to 

entirely cover Bavaria with about 4 inches of concrete. W hat is the 

reason for all of this?

General Morris. One of the real shortcomings in Europe is the 

condition of the hardstand areas, the maintenance areas particularly, for the care, maintenance and storage of our equipment. I 

know on my last visit over there that a major shortfall in the troop 

units at this point in time is the hardstand. That is what it is all 

about.

Senator Huddleston. Trying to get out of the mud?

General Morris. Yes, sir. It is almost impossible to maintain 

equipment in the mud, and even if you do, you don’t do a very good 

job because of that.

COMMUN ICATION S FACILITIES

Senator Huddleston. Now, there are several projects associated 

with communications or satellite communications. What are the 

major communications shortfalls in the the ate r and how do these 

projects address them?

General Morris. One big problem over there is the antiquated 

telephone system which has been there since World War II. I 

suppose from the standpoint of efficiency, there are not too many 

things tha t aggravate persons any more than the telephone system, 

and there a re others which could be improved by using the defense 

satellite communications system.

Senator Huddleston. Is th at what you are developing now?

General Read. We have four construction projects in this yea r’s 

program tha t will support these efforts. Three of them are oriented 

toward the defense satellite system and one of them is an upgrade 

of a telephone activity.

Senator Huddleston. To what extent do you use the telephone 

system of the country involved? To what extent do you have your 

own?

General Read. We principally tie in.

General Morris. Just based on my observations—maybe someone 

here can help us on that.

Colonel Murray. Yes, sir. I can answer that. We utilize our own 

base communications systems, however, we utilize the Deutsch 

Bundespost circuitry between Kasernes to get to the outside commercial world.

Senator Huddleston. But you build and maintain your own on 

our bases?

Colonel Murray. Yes.

Senator Huddleston. You don’t do th at in this country, do you?

Colonel Murray. Yes, sir; we do.

Senator Huddleston. They just interconnect with the private 

systems.
487

KOREA REA LINEMENT ACTIVITY

Now, in Korea your budget request contained $7.1 million for 

provisions of facilities for forces relocated from Korea. How many 

personnel have returned to the United States th us far?

General Morris. In the last calendar year it was about 3,500, 

3,436 to be exact.

Senator Huddleston. What is the current schedule for future 

returns?

General Morris. This year we are scheduled to bring out an 

additional 2,564 people.

Senator Huddleston. What are we going to do with the $7.1 

million?

General Morris. Well, sir, that is money to get started in a 

hur ry when somebody decides where these troops are going. We 

know it is going to ta ke several years to do the construction needed 

to support the troops that will be coming from Korea. There is a 

buildup time required to accommodate those soldiers; most of th at 

$7.1 million would be to take care of th e beddown, just the initial 

cost of getting them home a t such time as they come out.

Senator Huddleston. You still don’t know where that is going to 

be?

General Morris. No, I don’t.

Senator Huddleston. They haven’t told me. [Laughter.]

General Read. Sir, they haven’t told any of us.

Senator Huddleston. So that is just money to have available to 

prepare whatever facilities may be necessary?

General Morris. Yes. For the initial contingent.

Senator Huddleston. But you don’t at this point know specifically what that is going to be?

General Morris. We are planning on this number.

General Read. The key is, of course, it would have to be tailored 

to the locations. There are a lot of things I think we could get 

started on very quickly, upgrading u tilities-----

Senator Huddleston. Opening barra cks and additional mess 

facilities or what?

General Read. We are very sensitive to the fact that we want to 

be able to utilize the money properly in the fiscal year. That would 

be influenced by the design time for the various types of activities.

Senator Huddleston. Have you been given any indication when 

this decision is going to be made, where the Second Division is 

going to be stationed?

General Morris. Sir, I honestly am not aware of any date by 

which we would know that. We do feel, though, that the commitment to withdraw the troops was made earlier, so we anticipate 

this 2,500.

Senator Huddleston. You are pretty sure about that amount?

General Morris. Well, as things stand now, that is the number 

we are working with.

Senator Huddleston. So it would be correct to assume that the 

$7.1 million would be applied to whatever base happens to be 

designated for the new home of the Second Division?
488

General Morris. There are other troops involved also. Certainly 

tha t would be the bulk of it, but there are other units in Korea 

which will be coming out.

CHILD CARE CENTERS

Senator Huddleston. On another matter, the fiscal year 1980 

budget contains $3.2 million for child care cente rs at Fort Bragg 

and Fort Hood. This small amount could be the leading edge of a 

potentially significant program. I want to identify the issue to 

insure informed debate. I am sure there will be no difficulty in 

appreciating the need for child care centers. The number of women 

in our military, and the economy which often requires both parents 

to work, make the necessity for child day care a fact of life.

The Air Force, I know, has had a very active program in recent 

years to provide such facilities. The issue is that to date Congress 

has not been asked to provide appropriated resources for this purpose. It, like other revenue-generating functions, has been a nonappropriated fund activity.

In today’s fiscal climate where the military is resisting efforts by 

some to reduce its support for so-called fringe benefits, you are 

asking Congress to provide possibly several hundred million dollars 

for a new benefit.

It may very well be that this support is entirely proper and that 

it will be authorized and appropriated. I th ink that such a decision 

should be explicit, however, based upon full knowledge of what we 

are getting into, and to tha t end, I have a series of questions which 

should clarify the record.

General Read. Sir, if I may, I would like to introduce Major 

General Pennington, who is our Adjutant General.

Senator Huddleston. Fine. All right, General, how many day 

care centers does the Army now run, and how are they supported?

General Pennington. Sir, we have 224 general support 

services. This is day care dropin and preschool, operating on 145 of 

our installations. They are funded primarily by user fees. In other 

words, you pay them so much an hour, so much a week for the 

child to stay there. That goes to hire the atte nda nts and hire the 

people to run the child care centers.

Senator Huddleston. Are these distributed generally throughou t 

your entire base structure?

General Pennington. Primarily so. More so in the remote installations and overseas. In an urban area say like Fort Myer, you 

might be able to use an offbase facility, but in a place like Fort 

Hood and Fort Bragg, of course you know you only have a small 

town nearby, and they don’t have th e facilities.

Senator Huddleston. What is the basic problem with these existing centers right now?

General Pennington. I think you saw the old barracks buildings 

of World War II. That is what we are in now. In other words, 

General Morris hasn’t thrown us out and torn down the building. 

We have taken the old barracks.

Senator Huddleston. You get what is left?

General Pennington. Yes, we get what is left, and we move in 

there. The problem is they don’t meet any kinds of safety stand-
489

ards. HEW, of course, and the States have safety standards that 

say you have to be able to evacuate the building in a certain period 

of time, and of course, most of these buildings could go up in 

flames in 3 or 4 minutes, especially dangerous if you have the 

children upstairs. I have tramped around through the Army looking at these.

Many of them are in very bad shape, because if we had a major 

fire, we would have a major disaster. It is to replace that kind of 

building or to renovate. In a few instances where we have been 

able to get a permanent type building, we plan to renovate it, to 

separate the rooms and make it available for the children.

Senator Huddleston. Based on the size of your curren t program, 

what is the estimated total cost of replacing these centers with 

adequate facilities?

General Pennington. We have about 105 facilities that we estimate we would have to have a major renovation or construction on 

over a 10-year period. Then we have about 25 tha t we think require 

minor things t hat we can fix with OMA funds. It would take on the 

order of $90 million over a 10-year period. Tha t is what we have 

programed as an initial staff estimate.

Senator Huddleston. The Air Force apparently has made great 

strides in this area entirely from n onappropriated funds. Why can’t 

the Army do the same?

General Pennington. There are several reasons for that. No. 1, 

you know the Air Force did not have as many large bases as we 

had prior to World War II. As they built the ir bases afte r the war, 

they built mostly perm anent type buildings, and many of those did 

include child care centers, or they took a perm anent building and 

renovated it or changed it. So tha t is one factor.

The other factor is the Air Force has had a little different 

priority from what we have had. For instance, they built most of 

the ir clubs, their NCO, officers clubs, and enlisted men’s clubs from 

appropriated funds. On the other hand, we built them from nonappropriated funds. We assumed that most of our clubs can raise fees 

and charges and can sell food and beverages and pay the ir way. We 

have pretty much done that. The Air Force has built most of their 

clubs with appropriated funds. We have gone the other way. It is 

just a matter of priority, really.

The other thing is we are different from the Air Force. We have 

a tremendous number of enlisted men and enlisted women E-4’s 

and below, some 400,000, and 54 percent of junior America are 

married. In the Volunteer Army, we have had to accept people 

with dependents who under the old d raft you wouldn’t have drafted. We have ended up with these people in the military, the wife 

having to work; both of them having to work to make a living. 

They are leaving these children somewhere, and in many cases 

they are hiring some NCO’s wife to take 15 to 20 of them in the 

home. We have real problems with HEW and the State on those.

Senator Huddleston. Assuming that Congress agrees that these 

centers are an appropriated responsiblity, is it logical to assume 

that the Air Force and Navy would also seek funding?

General Pennington. I hate to ta lk for them. On the other hand, 

I just looked through some of the DOD information regarding that. 

For the reasons I indicated before, they are in pretty good shape.
490

For instance, in condition one and two, as they call it, they have 98 

of these in condition one; 16 in condition two, and they only have 

about 38 facilities that they are contemplating replacing. In other 

words, they don’t have the magnitude of the Army problem and 

they have different policies. They don’t have anything like the 

problem we have.

Senator Huddleston. I think you make a pretty good case for 

the fact that you are different in your requirement and the ability, 

too, to finance it. Of course, the economic and social pressures 

which prompt the need for child care are not uniquely a function 

of military life. And it could be argued that the single parents or 

working parents knew what they were getting into when they 

joined up.

Do you feel like there is some sort of moral responsibility to 

provide this care at Government expense?

General Pennington. I do, sir. We have enlisted them to meet 

our requirements. Many of them didn’t know when they got in tha t 

it was going to cost them as much as it does in Germany or in 

places like Fort Hood. For instance I was just out at Fort Stewart 

the other day, and by and large the E-4 ’s that are married are 

living in trailers that are being rented to them, furnished for $200 

a month, just side by side. You get in a helicopter and for miles 

and miles th at is what you see. I don’t th ink they expected to move 

to Fort Stewart, Ga., outside of Hinesville, and pay $200 a month 

for a rented trailer. They just didn’t plan ahead.

On the other hand, we had to have the manpower, so we have 

got them.

Now, the question is, the wife has to go to work. What are we 

going to do with those children? I do think we have a moral 

responsibility to help them in that regard. Now, they should cover 

the cost of the attendance, the cost of the operation.

Senator Huddleston. Does tha t cover all of the operating costs?

General Pennington. In the large ones we have one child care 

coordinator, we have one appropriated fund GS civilian who is an 

expert in how you handle children, safety, and that sort of thing. 

And they hire all those part-time people, usually, again, wives and 

whatnot, and a lot of volunteers. They make a maximum use of 

volunteers.

Senator Huddleston. You supply the buildings and utilities?

Major General Pennington. T hat is right, sir.

Our problem is we don’t have the facilities, and we cannot 

charge enough in order to build the facilities. That is the problem 

tha t we have. Outside the gate on the average it is $1.50 an hour 

for a child. Well, E-4 ’s and below can’t pay that, and we are 

charging on the order of 50 or 60 cents an hour, $30 a week. That 

is still pretty stiff.

Senator Huddleston. Do you believe tha t this is a factor in your 

retention rate?

General Pennington. Sir, I believe so, with these soldiers we 

found tha t if the wife is satisfied, if you can make it, in other 

words, they can pay the bills and have some sort of quality of life, 

we have found t hat that is th e soldier who will re-enlist, and save 

us literally millions in training costs. If the wife is involved in the 

whole quality of life program, and we have done all sorts of surveys
491

and spent a lot of time out there talking to them —if the wife will 

agree to stay, the soldier will stay. If she is unhappy in a trailer at 

Fort Stewart, there is no way.

So I thin k it is a critical factor in our view.

Senator Huddleston. Plus better morale, I take it.

General Pennington. That is it, sir. Often in the Army in the 

past we have talked in terms of when equipment is ready, you 

know, 100-percent, equipment is in top shape, and the soldier is 

ready, we have 100 percent strength and let’s go. But if tha t 

soldier, if his wife is out in some tra iler , has no way to get milk for 

the baby, no way to get to the hospital and that sort of thing, not 

enough money to meet the grocery bill, we don’t have a ready 

soldier. We don’t have a guy who can train. He is not mentally 

ready, so he doesn’t take good advantage of the training.

We found that is a very critical factor, so General Rogers has 

said quality of life is near-term readiness, because it means that 

soldier knows somebody is going to take care of his family. He is 

ready to go.

General Morris. General Pennington is th e expert on this, sir. I 

really don’t recall him saying that there are a lot of soldiers who 

are single parents. It is just a ma tter of good business to make him 

a productive soldier by letting him, if he has children, and many of 

them do, have a place for his child.

Senator Huddleston. I don’t think there is any question you can 

make a case for it. I guess it comes down to the question of 

priorities and whether or not we are launching into a new area of 

appropriations that probably will continue to grow to satisfy requirements. It makes sense to me. I am a great believer in improving the life of the serviceman.

General Read. I was going to observe t ha t one of the key aspects 

of it is the lack of options we have got today to capitalize the 

amount we are talking about from any other source.

General Pennington. I thin k in the whole society the wife is 

beginning to work. In the Army basically it is jus t a necessity.

General Morris. I think if you do some kind of benefit-cost 

analysis you could prove this is one of the best investments we 

could make as far as benefits to th e Army are concerned.

Senator Huddleston. Thank you very much. I thin k that will 

help us as the subcommittee continues its work.

I wanted to get some information on record on behalf of my 

colleague, Senator Inouye, who is not here, about Tripler.

General Read. Yes, sir.

TRIPLER ARMY MEDICAL CENTER, HONOLOLU

Senator Huddleston. The subcommittee is aware that substantial modification and renovation are required at the Tripler Army 

Medical Center in Honolulu. I believe that the Army had begun 

programing for this effort in fiscal year 1980, but the project was 

deleted during the budget process.

As I say, the Senator from Hawaii would be wanting us to clarify 

that status. Is Tripler the only major Federal facility in Hawaii 

serving veterans, public health and other functions in addition to 

active military?
492

General Morris. T hat is correct.

Senator Huddleston. Also the only major teaching hospital?

General Read. Yes, sir, that is correct.

General Morris. The only Federal one.

Senator Huddleston. What are the basic shortcomings and problems with the hospital?

General Read. I might call on Colonel Walls from the Medical 

Corps. He can address those.

Colonel Walls. I am Colonel Walls from the Surgeon General’s 

Office. Basically our problem at Tripler has to do with the lack of 

adequate space. It is functionally obsolete due to its age and configuration. It does not meet full JCH Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Standards, or life safety codes. Basically it requires a complete electrical and mechanical overhaul—such things 

as proper access in corridors and smoke barrie r doors.

Senator Huddleston. If it is in danger of losing its accreditation 

with these difficulties, how are you going to continue to operate it?

Colonel Walls. Sir, since the Tripler project was deferred from 

the 1980 program, we have developed an urgent minor project 

which will cost about $294,000 to take care of six very important 

critical deficiencies tha t will perm it continued accreditation.

Senator Huddleston. What had been your construction program 

tha t had been approved?

Colonel Walls. In the 1980 program it would have been $74 

million.

Senator Huddleston. Would that have brought it up to pretty 

good standards, or would that jus t begin?

Colonel Walls. Sir, that was the first package that was developed for $74 million.

General Read. I think, tha t it is proper to address this. This 

project would have taken care of the most important first items. 

When you are going to do this kind of effort, you ju st can’t do all of 

it at once anyway. So it seemed to be far more sensible to look at 

tha t which was the most pressing and put it together in the first 

phase, because we couldn’t move on otherwise.

One thing we were very conscious of, though, is to make certain 

tha t what we were looking at would be a total project just in and of 

itself.

Senator Huddleston. Now, you thin k these six most urgent 

items would alleviate the danger of losing accreditation?

Colonel Walls. Yes, sir, I th ink they definitely would insure the 

retention of accreditation, if we put the $74 million construction 

package through.

Senator Huddleston. Is there any effective alternative in the 

long run from the major construction project?

Colonel Walls. No, sir.

General Morris. Sir, I would have to say from my viewpoint 

there is not. I have been there; I have looked at the facility. It has 

all the ingredients of a great hospital, but there is not much in 

between.

Senator Huddleston. Since there are no projects for 1980, what 

is the outlook? Are you going to try in 1981?

General Morris. Yes, sir.

General Read. It will be looked at in 1981, yes, sir.
493

General Morris. It will be in the list of projects to be reviewed.

Senator Huddleston. What is your experience with medical personnel there? Is there a doctor shortage?

Colonel Walls. Tripler has a very attractive program for retention and recruitm ent of physicians, specifically for our teaching 

program. They sign up specifically to go to tha t location.

Senator Huddleston. I felt sure you would say that. [Laughter.]]

How are you going to get them back to Fort Knox afte r they 

have seen Hawaii?

General Morris. Kentucky has its advantages.

Colonel Walls. They will also incur an obligation to the Army 

for the ir training. When they enter into the teaching program, 

they have a payback period to the Government.

Senator Huddleston. Where is that? Wherever you put them or 

wherever they want to go?

Colonel Walls. Wherever the Surgeon General needs them the 

most.

Senator Huddleston. This is off the subject, but maybe you can 

tell me what is your situation right now with doctors. Has it 

improved any over the last year?

Colonel Walls. I think they have made a very intensive effort to 

recruit and retain physicians. They made a real strong effort to 

recruit civilian physicians.

Senator Huddleston. But is it alleviating the problem?

Colonel Walls. Somewhat, sir. I don’t have that figure available, 

and would like to provide tha t information for the record. We can 

give you th at for the record, sir.

[The information follows:]

Doctor Shortage

Overall physician end streng th has incre ased from 4,140 in fiscal yea r 1978 to a 

projected 4,173 by the end of fiscal year 1979 and 4,349 by the end of fiscal year 

1980. However, the Army is still experiencing serious shortfa lls in certain critic al 

specialities. For example, in radiology we have auth orized 210 spaces, yet have only 

64 in uniform—a shor tage of 146; in orthopedics, 274 spaces are auth orized, yet we 

have only 108 in uniform—a shor tage of 166.

Senator Huddleston. I know it is a major problem. We have 

some legislation over here kicking around to try to do something 

about it.

Thank you very much, Colonel.

FORT CA MP BE LL

Well, since all my colleagues left it to me today, I will get 

parochial with you a little bit. You have a request of $17.2 million 

at Fort Campbell in fiscal year 1980 for five projects, I believe. Can 

you indicate the mission which these projects will support?

General Read. Yes, sir. The first item is a flight simulator building. Of course, we have the CH-47’s down at Fort Campbell: This 

will give us the capability of being able to train a lot of th e pilots 

in the simulator without having to incur the same amount of hours 

in actual flying time. The savings is not only in dollars, but also in 

fuel, and it actually increases our safety.
494

The second item is a barracks with administrative and supply 

facilities. This $12.8 million project will give us a barracks for 835 

enlisted men at Campbell.

Senator Huddleston. That is 835 spaces?

General Read. Yes.

Senator Huddleston. Are those new or renovated?

General Read. Those are new, sir. Actually this project is the 

finish of a project that was begun in 1974. But because of the 

funding situation we had on that, we were not able to totally 

complete it. This would finish tha t project.

Senator Huddleston. I want to commend you on your quarters 

and barracks projects down there. You have done a tremendous job 

in improving them. I guess percentagewise that base is probably 

about as well off as anywhere in the country from the standpoint 

of facilities improvements.

General Read. Yes, sir, and the base has been a little bit unique 

in the sense tha t we have gone above the normal 9 percent programing limitation because of the need to house the soldiers.

The third project is for miscellaneous water pollution control. 

Here is a case where we have a number of items. We are going to 

recover water from the trea tme nt plan t wastes. We are going to 

filter the backwash out. We are going to have to connect the boiler 

blowdowns and the swimming pools which otherwise are pollutant 

sources for us.

We also have some oil and water separators th at a re required at 

four vehicle racks, two vehicle maintenance area s and two service 

stations. We have a fire training burn basin and a POL separa tor 

to dispose of contam inated fuels. We have some work on repairing 

a JP -4 and aircraft fuel line area.

All of those are sources of pollution that we have to eliminate in 

line with the earlier comments that we have made, sir.

Senator Huddleston. A chilled water storage, supplying ice 

water to the troops? [Laughter.]

General Read. That is a coolant for th e air conditioner. This is a 

project that will provide for the installation of a 25,000-gallon 

insulated chilled water storage tank at the post central energy 

plant. It gives the capability for package heating and cooling units. 

In the administrative offices of eight of the perm anent buildings, 

there is an extended period of time when only a few offices within 

each building are occupied and require comfort control. The last 

project will provide a 7,500-kilovoltampere addition to a substation. 

It is tied in with the flight simulator building. We made this 

project separate from that building, though, because we could anticipate the need for the substation to better support the whole 

post, so we split it out from being a part of the simulator building.

Senator Huddleston. Do you anticipate any change in Fort 

Campbell mission or personnel strength?

General Read. There is no indication of that, sir.

nonbudgeted projects

Senator Huddleston. Did you request any projects a t Fort Campbell which were not included in the budget?
495

General Read. Sir, I can’t remember any, but I will be happy to 

provide that for the record for you.

[The information follows:]

Programed Projects

The following projects were programed for Fort Campbell, Kentucky in the Army 

submission of th e mil itary construction program in October 1978. The projects listed 

include those deferred from the Army Minimum, Base, and Enhanced levels of the 

budget. The costs are cu rre nt cost estimates and not necessarily costs which were

subm itted in October 1978.

Description: Current coet

Unaccompanied officer building mo der nization................................... $1,853,000

Woodlawn vehicle bridg e.......................................................................... 1,106,000

Company adm inistration and supply b uildin g...................................... 2,792,000

Ceiling and wall insulation proje ct........................................................ 507,000

FORT CAMPBELL CONSTRUC TION

Senator Huddleston. All right. Well, looking ahead then to 

fiscal year 1981, w hat construction do you expect at Fort Campbell 

in th e next fiscal year?

General Read. Well, sir, what we have right now that we are 

looking at is modernization of one of the BOQ’s, the Woodlawn 

Bridge, company administration and supply buildings and arms 

rooms. There are some energy type projects for insulating some hot 

water lines at the hospital, some storm window work t ha t we could 

do down there, an energy monitoring and control system and then 

some ceiling and wall insulation. As you are aware, those are ones 

that we are looking at now. They will go throu gh the review 

process within the system.

Senator Huddleston. How is the new hospital coming along?

General Morris. It is coming along fine, sir. I haven’t been to see 

it lately, but on my last visit, it looked like it was in good shape. I 

think we have a good structure there.

Senator Huddleston. Do you have a completion date on that?

General Morris. I will have to get the exact date.

[The information follows:]

Fort Campbell Hospital

The completion date for the Fort Campbell hospital is March 15, 1981.

FORT KNOX

Senator Huddleston. At Fort Knox you requested $10 million in 

fiscal year 1980. If we could take a look a t those projects.

General Read. All right, sir. The first one is an armored crew 

training facility. This particular facility is needed because we have 

increased the number of people down there in our training, and we 

are crowded. We have also got some more sophisticated equipm ent 

tha t we need to put in, and we need the new facilitiy to be able to 

accommodate that. I th ink that is a very worthwhile project.

The next item is to insulate some tempo rary buildings. We have 

269 temporary World War II mobilization type buildings there 

which are not scheduled for demolition during the project amo rtization period. You will get the full use of those. We want to put
496

insulation in the attics, the walls, and the floors, and some of the 

open crawl spaces.

We anticipate that we will be able to get an annual saving of 

$117,000 and amortize them in 10.7 years. The MBTU energy savings per $1,000 cost ratio is 48. Tha t is a significant figure to us, 

because we measure these things not only in dollars to amortize 

themselves over the life of the project; but they also have to jump 

over a fence in terms of the energy savings that they will provide.

The project for a heat recovery incinerator, is to provide two 

solid waste controlled air incinerators, each with 20-ton per day 

capacity, to b urn approximately 660 tons per month of post refuse. 

We think this is really fine. We have a couple of similar projects in 

this year’s program, one at Knox and one at Fort Leonard Wood. 

This gives us the opportunity of using the refuse that we do generate on our bases.

Senator Huddleston. Do you use it at full capacity, or is it 

combined with nearby communities? They are also trying to get rid 

of their garbage.

General Read. I would presume, sir, that the enterprising facilities engineers that we have in the field will be working with that 

project very closely, because if they can see savings they will 

certainly be doing th at to help their position.

We also have a miscellaneous water pollution abatement project 

at Knox of $4.55 million. This includes a new storm sewer and 

storm drainage interceptor ditch, which will reduce the inflow of 

storm water into the sanitary sewerage. Also included are the 

disconnection of the building foundation drains from the sanitary 

sewers, some corrective measures for liquid waste discharges such 

as POL and shop floor drains and motor part discharges, the upgrading of a sanitary sewerage laboratory and water pollution 

control a t an existing asphalt plan t and rock crusher.

Senator Huddleston. Do you anticipate any change in the mission or personnel strength at Fort Knox?

General Read. The indication is an increase at Fort Knox in the 

training load and other personnel.

Senator Huddleston. That will resu lt from the proposed base 

realignments?

General Read. Yes, sir. I guess the key one would be one in 

which the preferred alternative would cause an increase at Fort 

Knox.

Senator Huddleston. I see. You have my support on that. 

[Lau ghte r]

It depends on what happens at Fort Dix. I don’t know whether I 

can handle Bill Bradley or not. He is a big fellow. [General laughter.]

Did you request any projects at Fort Knox that were not included in the budget?

General Read. Yes, sir. There was a tank training range project 

that did not get in this year’s program. I recall it was about $10 

million, but I would like to check that number for the record.

[The information follows:]
497

Tank Training Facility

One project, a tan k training facility, was deferred from the projects which were 

programed for Fort Knox, Kentucky in the Army military construction program. 

The estimated cost of this project was $9,318,000.

TANK RAN GES

Senator H uddleston. W hat kind of facility was that?

Mr. Carton. It was a continuation of a program tha t began with 

the 1979 program, sir. There was a project in the 1979 program of 

about $4 million to begin the rebuilding of th e tank ranges.

Senator Huddleston. Is tha t related to the XM-1?

Mr. Carton. Not necessarily to the XM-1 itself, but it was a 

rebuilding of the tank ranges at Fort Knox. The entire program 

would run about $14 million, I believe the first $4 million was just 

star ting work that it would be phased over several years.

Senator Huddleston. Beyond t hat, do you have any other anticipated projects a t Fort Knox?

General Read. Yes, sir. We have the tan k training facility we 

indicate, and then one for the XM-1 tan k construction, a facility 

for that. That is an outyear project.

budgeting for base realinements

Senator Huddleston. You are announcing t ha t base realinement 

proposal today. Was this proposal considered in developing the 

fiscal year 1980 budget?

General Read. No, sir.

Senator Huddleston. So are there any requests in the 1980 

budget which would be revised as a resu lt of that?

General Read. Sir, I do not know of any.

Senator Huddleston. What is the next step in the realinem ent 

process?

General Read. I think each one of the indicated items sort of 

stands alone, and is an individual decision. Then as it comes up for 

decision-----

Senator Huddleston. Listening to the gnashing of teeth and the 

moaning will be the next step, I take it.

LEXINGTON BLUE GRASS ARMY DEPOT

Another area in which we have a particu lar interest is the depot 

storage situation, particularly at the Lexington Blue Grass Army 

Depot. The recent Army report, the depot storage modernization 

master plan, shows tha t most Army depots were at full storage 

capacity and some of them actually over their manageable limits. 

The recommendation was tha t $96.5 million of cen tral distribution 

center at Red River, an Army depot, be built. I don’t think you have 

any money in the 1980 budget for th at purpose.

The Lexington depot is being operated at about 59 percent capacity. A letter from the Army received by my office last Friday cited 

constrained budget as part of the reason for the Blue Grass Army 

Depot’s downgrading. So I have several questions, and I don’t know 

whether you are in a position to answer them today or not. Perhaps you can get an answer for the record.

11 -6 38 0 - 7 9 - 3 2
498

One is: Why, if the budget is tight, the Army let the Blue Grass 

Depot stand virtually idle while lettin g valuable equipm ent sit on 

the outside at some other depots, and while a t other facilities, New 

Cumberland and Sharp, they operate above their manageable capacity while the Lexington Blue Grass is almost half vacant?

I guess more to the point: How can you say you need to spend 

over $96 million in upcoming years, taxpayers’ money, to build a 

new facility at Red River when the Lexington Depot—already 

under Red River control—is partially vacant? Why c an’t we transfer some of the storage down to Lexington and cut down on the 

waste and the outside expense, instead of giving this space away to 

the Reserve, which has been suggested, and then asking Congress 

for $96 million for another project?

General Read. Sir, as you indicated at the outset, we do not have 

that money in this year’s program. I am not t ha t familiar with the 

study that you have referred to. But if I may, I would like to 

answer those for the record.

Senator Huddleston. I wish you would. I have not found anybody over there who has read it yet. There is no in-house study.

[The information follows:]

Distribution and Storage Concept

Beginning in 1974, the Army realigned its distribution and storage concept. Three 

depots were established as are a orien ted distribution depots so as to maximize 

materiel read iness and minimize costs in the distribution of secon dary items. End 

items are assigned for storage cons istent with mainte nance capabilities. It was 

recognized th at underutilized storage space would exist as a res ult of this alignme nt 

in certain geographic areas. While recognizing th at the occupancy is high at New 

Cum berla nd Army Depot and Sharpe Army Depot, it is with in man ageable means 

and does afford economic advantages. With respect to outside storage of equipment, 

the overall readiness and economic considerations favor storage at a location with 

the appr opr iate mainten ance capability.

A new Centra l Distribution Cen ter for Red River, an Area Orie nted Depot (AOD), 

is being considered as a method of improving efficiency at th at depot; but such a 

project has not been incorporated into the Military Construction Program. This 

facility would consolidate, into one complex, supply operatio ns which are now 

performed in several buildings.

Tra nsf er of m ateriel to Lexington for storage would negate economies achieved by 

the AOD align ment begun in 1974. The proposal to divert space at Lexington-Blue 

Grass for reserve component use is c urr ently under review at the U.S. Army Depot 

System Command. If that command recommends approval, the proposal would be 

reviewed by Hea dquarters, U.S. Army Materiel Development & Readiness Command, and by Hea dquarters, Department of the Army, prior to any approval. If 

required for depot mobilization, any space diverted to reserve components could be 

made available in a short time.

OR GANIZATIO N STUDIES

General Read. I guess one of the things that I might indicate is 

in our organization, as in any large organization, we have a continuing effort by the people in the field activities to see how they 

can do the ir job better and seek economies. So they do a certain 

amount of studies. Not all of them ever find th eir way to th e Army 

staff.

Senator Huddleston. Well, I think we are seeing a situation 

where Sacramento and other Army depots which handle electronic 

main tenance—the capability that is at Lexington—show substantial growth, going beyond the ir best capability, but Lexington Blue 

Grass is being cut back—two-thirds of its work force has been cut
499

already. Good buildings are standing virtually vacant. You have 

materials stored outside in some places.

This ought to be reviewed to see whether or not we can save 

money and become more efficient by utilizing those facilities. I 

wish you would give t hat some attention, if you will.

General Read. Yes, sir. We will.

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

General Morris. We c ertain ly will, sir, particularly if it gets into 

the budget process. We will be glad to provide an answer to your 

questions.

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for responses subsequent to the hea ring:]

Questions Submitted By Senator Huddleston

Question. I notice tha t you have included a project for a new indoor athletic 

facility at West Point which includes provisions for basketball and hockey. I also 

understand tha t the Military Academy charges admission to these intercollegiate 

sports competitions. Why is the Army seeking appropriated funds for the construction of this facility?

Answer. The income derived from ticket sales (primarily football) supports all 

thirty-one of the men’s and women’s inter-collegiate athletic teams at West Point. 

The revenue generated has been adequate to meet operating requirem ents in the 

past, but because of the rising costs in goods and services, the ability to meet these 

requirements is becoming increasingly marginal. Although football revenues were 

used in the past to finance construction of athletic facilities (e.g., West Point Golf 

Course), at this time funds to meet such capital expenditures for athletic facilities 

cannot be generated.

Question. How do other major public colleges and universities fund for major 

capital improvements to their athletic facilities?

Answer. A random survey of seventeen colleges and universities with major 

intercollegiate athletic programs which have added new athletic facilities in recent 

years revealed several sources of funding for such projects. Within this sample, a 

combination of state funds, federal funds, or bond issues were used for capital 

improvement. Examples of these methods of funding include the construction of a 

convention hall for $30 million by the University of Texas which was university 

funded, the construction of a football stadium for $13 million at the University of 

Kentucky by State backed bonds, the construction of a sports complex at Louisville, 

Kentucky, where the major user is the University of Louisville, for $40 million 

which was built by the City of Louisville with municipal bonds, and the construction 

of a recreation center at the State University of New York, Cortland, for $9.8 

million which was State funded. There are many additional examples where State 

funds, or bonds by the State, or municipalities have provided athletic facilities for 

colleges and universities. Military Construction funding is the only similar means 

available to the United States Military Academy to provide required athletic facilities.

Question. What requests for land acquisition are contained in this fiscal year 1980 

military construction request and what are the cost estimates based on?

Answer. The fiscal year 1980 military construction request contains five land 

acquisition projects located at Fort Polk, Louisiana, White Sands Missile Range, 

New Mexico, Fort Chaffee, Arkansas, Fort Bliss, Texas, and at Blossom Point, Harry 

Diamond Laboratory, Maryland. The cost estimates for Fort Polk and White Sands 

Missile Range are based on updated staff appraisals accomplished in October 1978, 

which are in agreement with the requested amounts. An in-house Corps of Engineers gross appraisal dated January 1979 places the value of the land at Fort Bliss 

at $18.5 million to include contingencies. The project was submitted at the end of 

December 1978 for $14.0 million. Based on the January 1979 appraisal, all of the 

60,160 acres could not be purchased for the requested amount. The request for the 

land at Blossom Point, Harry Diamond Laboratory is based on an option to purchase the land concluded by the Justice Department during a lease condemnation 

action in fiscal year 1978. The option was for a three-year period so the amount 

requested will be adequate if the requested amount is approved in the fiscal year
500

1980 program. The last project at Fort Chaffee is no longer required. The land was 

acquired in fee by the United States of America on an action in the Court of Claims 

and the owner compensated.

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator Huddleston. Thank you very much. I believe that completes our questions. I appreciate again you gentlemen coming 

over. Other members may have questions to submit to you.

Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., Thursday, March 29, th e hearings were 

concluded and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at the 

call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COM MUNIC ATION S, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Pag e

Barringer, Philip E., Director, Foreign Military Rights Affairs, Office of the

Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs..................... 135, 141

Beauregard, Henry G., attorney, Holly Corp.:

Letter from ................................................................................................................. 60

Prepared statement.................................................................................................... 60

Blanchard, Gen. Bernard W., Ch ief of Staff, USA , letter fro m................................ 213

Brewer. Col. John F„ Jr., USA, Sta ff Director, Installations and Services,

Defense Logistics Agency........................................................................................ 136, 142

Carter, Rear Adm. P. F., Jr., USN, Deputy Director, Strategy Plans and Policy 

Division, Office o f Deputy Ch ief of Naval Operations for Plans, Policy and

Operations.................................................................................................................. 136, 141

Biographical sketch................................................................................................... 170

Prepared statement.................................................................................................... 161

Carton, Allen M., Programing Division, Office o f the Assistant Ch ief of

Engineers, Department o f the Arm y......................................................................... 471

Cheatham, Brig. Gen. E C., USMC, Director, Facilities and Services Division,

Office of the Deputy Ch ief for Installations and Logistics....................... 136, 141, 343

Biographical sketch................................................................................................... 365

Prepared statement............. .-..................................................................................... 362

Chewning, Rear Adm. R. W „ Director, Politico Military Policy Division, Office

of Deputy Chief o f Staff, Logistics and Engineering.............................................. 89

Biographical sketch................................................................................................... 96

Prepared statement...................................................................................... ............. 90

Conaway, Brig. Gen. John B„ Deputy Director, Air National Gua rd..................... 199

Biographical sketch................................................................................................... 205

Prepared statement.................................................................................................... 200

Crissman, Maj. Kearney W., R.D.T.E Programs and budget Division, Office of

Deputy Ch ief o f Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition, 

Department of the Army............................................................................................. 471

Delaney, William F., Chief, Logistics Division, Department of Defense

Dependents Schools................................................................................................. 136, 142

Dufour, Glenn, Jr., district superintendent, John Swett Un ifie d School D is tric t.... 64

Faith, Maj. Gen. John C., Director, Operations and Readiness Directorate,

Deputy Ch ief of Sta ff for Operations and Plans.............. ...................................... 79

Faust, L t Col. Willia m, USAF, Directorate of Programs..................................... 136, 142

Force structure br iefin g........................................_................................................. 180

Fliakas, Perry, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Installations and Housing. Office of 

Assistant Secretary of Defense, Manpower Reserve Affairs and Logistics............................ ..................................................... ...................... ......... L 71. 135, 141

Prepared statement.................................................................................................... 3

Forsythe, Ll Col. Conrad O., Directorate o f Space Systems and Command, 

Control and Communications____________ ___ ..______ _____ __ _____ ___ 399

0)
Gilb ert, Maj. Gen. W illiam D., USAF, Director o f Engineering and Services, Office 

of Deputy C hief of Staff, Logistics and Engineering ............................... 103,136,142, 399

Gilkey, Col. Clarence D., Facilities Engineer, U.S. Military Academy, West 

Point, N .Y ..................................................................................................................... 471

Greenlief, Maj. Gen. Francis S., executive vice president, National Guard

Association of the L'nited States................................................................................. 235

Prepared statement...........................................................................................:........ 236

Groves, L t Gen. Richard H., Deputy Advisor to Secretary of Defense on 

NA TO Affairs ............................................................................................................. 71, 107

Hall, Rear Adm. D. P„ Project Manager, Trident System Project Offic e................ 283

Hatch, Col. Strategic Forces Directorate, U.S. Air Force ........................................... 314

Hinz, Col. Richard II., Directorate of Engineering and Services, U.S. Air

Force.......................................................................................................................... 311, 314

Huddleston, Hon. Walter D „ U.S. Senator from Kentucky, prepared statement.... 71

Iselin. Rear Adm. D. G., CEC, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering

Command.................................................................................................................. 283, 343

Biographical sketch.................................................................................................... 358

Prepared statements.............................................................................................. 300, 346

Iverson, Lt. Col. George R., Director, Community Support, Adjutant General

Center, Department of the Arm y...................................................................... . ...... 471

Jackley, Col. Lawrence W „ USA, Special Assistant, Panama Canal Treaty Affa irs ....... 1

Jamison, Robert E., Directorate of Budget................................................................... 399

Kamm, Rear Adm. Thomas A., Deputy Director, Naval Reserve............................ 217

Prepared statement.................................................................................................... 218

Laxalt, Hon. Paul, U.S. Senator from Nevada, prepared statement......................... 72

Liebner, Maj. Department of the Air Force................................................................. 103

Loveland. T. J., Director, Infrastructure and Logistics Division, U.S. Mission to

NATO............................................................................................................................. 107

Prepared statement.................................................................................................... 108

Lyon, Maj. Gen. William, Chief, Air Force Reserve, prepared statement............... 222

McAdoo, Brig. Gen. James E., Air Force Reserve..................................................... 221

MacDougall. Alan M „ senior intelligence research specialist..................................135, 141

Marshall, Mortim er M „ Jr., Director, Construction Standards and Design............. 1

Mohr, Maj. Gen. Henry, Chief, Arm y Reserve.......................................................... 209

Prepared statement.................................................................................................... 209

Morris, Lt. Gen. John W „ Ch ief of Engineers. Department of the Arm y.............. 427

Prepared statement.................................................................................................... 428

Murphy, T. James, senior intelligence research specialist....................................... 135, 141

Murray, Lt. Col. Marvin R., Office of the Assistant Ch ief of Staff for 

Automation and Communications, Department o f the A rm y................................ 471

Pinckney, Brig. Gen. T. C., US?\F, Director, East Asia and Pacific Region, Office o f 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affa irs ..................... 135,141

Read, Brig. Gen. William E., USA, Assistant Ch ief of Engineers............... 135, 141, 471

Prepared statement.................................................................................................... 138

Renick, Brig. Gen. Roderick D „ USA, Deputy Director, Operations and Readiness

Directorate, Deputy Chie f of Staff for Operations and Plans.................................. 135,141

Prepared briefing ....................................................................................................... 151

Roberts. Maj. Gen. J. Miln or, executive director, Reserve Officers Association of

the United States........................................................................................................... 246

Prepared statement.................................................................................................... 247

Rollence, John F., Acting Director, Facilities Programing......................................... 1

Rogner, E. A., Director, Installations Management and Planning............................. 1
Ill

Pa ge

Sigleo, Patrick J., Installations Planning Division, Office of the Assistant Chief o f 

Engineers, Department o f the Arm y.......................................................................... 471

Sylva, Ca pt John P., CEC, USN, Acting Director, Construction Operations and 

Facilities Management.................................................................................................. 1

Tripp, Maj. Gen. Darryl E., USAF, Deputy Director of Plans, Office o f the

Trosch, Dennis H., Assistant General Counsel (Lo gis tics)......................................... 1

Unzclman, Capt. Louis R„ Directorate of Engineering and Services....................... 399

Vick. L t Col. Gerald A., Programing Division, Office of the Assistant Ch ief of 

Engineers, Department o f the Arm y.......................................................................... 471

Wallace, Maj. Gen. Carl D „ president, Adjutants General Association o f the

United States.................................................................................................................. 252

Biographical sketch.................................................................................................... 255

Prepared statement.................................................................................................... 253

Walls, Col. Neal IL , Director, Health Facilities Planning Agency, Office o f the 

Surgeon General, Department of the Arm y.............................................................. 471

Weber, Maj. Gen. Lavern E., Chief, National Guard Bureau....................................... 19.

Biographical sketch.................................................................................................... 196

Prepared statement..................................................................................................... 195

Weisc, Brig. Gen. Willia m, USMC, Direc tor of Operations for Plans and

Policies, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps........................................................... 136, 142

Biographical sketch.................................................................................................... 178

Prepared statement.................................................................................................... 172

Wheeler, Cmdr. D. E., CEC. USN, Assistant Director, Program Operations, 

Economic Adjustment, Office o f Assistant Secretary o f Defense......................... 283

Zobel, Rear Adm . W. M „ USN, Vice Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command................................................................................................................... 136, 141

SUBJECT INDEX

Military Construction Overview P age

Base realinem ents ................................................................................................................ 43, 54

Budget re que st..................................................................................................................... 37

Construction, backlog o f...................................................................................................... 44

Construction execution........................................................................................................ 39

Defense a gen cies.................................................................................................................. 44

Energy conservation............................................................................................................. 40,56

Family h ousing..................................................................................................................... 42

Gu ard and Reserve pro gram............................................................................................... 54

Homeowners assistance program........................................................................................ 43

I Iuddlcston, Hon. Walter D., U.S. Senator from K entucky, opening remarks o f.......... 1

Inflation ................................................................................................................................ 38,47

NATO infrastructure........................................................................................................... 42,48

Outer Continental S helf oil and gas lease sales.................................................................. 43

Panama Treaty-related co nst ruc tion.................................................................................. 42,49

Planning and design............................................................................................................. 58

Pollution abatement............................................................................................................. 40,55

Solar e nergy ......................................................................................................................... 57

Zero base bu dg et.................................................................................................................. 46

NATO and NATO Support

Allied nations pre fina ncing................................... •............................................................. 127

Balance o f service, military construction and infrastructure funded p rogram ................ 73

Construction bac klog........................................................................................................... 121

Construction categories. Allied concurrence o n ................................................................ 122

Dep artm ent of the Air F or ce .............................................................................................. 103

Force structure changes............................................................................................... 103

Introduc tion of air cra ft................................................................................................ 103

New systems and related construction req uirements................................................ 105

Southern Region force................................................................................................. 105

Departmen t of the A rm y..................................................................................................... 79

Com mand roles in peacetime an d wartime................................................................ 81

European mission o f the U.S. A rm y.......................................................................... 82

Forward deployed forces............................................................................................. 85

Location of USAREUR un its ................................................................................... .. 86

Majo r combat forc es.................................................................................................... 84

NATO comm and s........................................................................................................ 80

Organization of the U.S. Army E urope (USA RE UR ).............................................. 83

USA REUR weapons systems........ . ........................................................................... 87

Dep artm ent o f the N avy...................................................................................................... 89

Iceland..................................... .................... .............................................................. .. 99

Marine Corps................................................................................................................ 98

Mediterranean are a............... _..................................................................... .............. 99

Naval posture in the Euro pean a rea.............................................................. ...... ...... 98

Navy Basing in European Th ea ter............................................................................. 89

Navy contribution to European defense..................................................................... 97

(v)
Dep artment of the Navy—Continued P a&e

Navy participation in NATO infrastructu re.................................................................. 100

U.S. interest.................................................................................................................. 97

Effects of appropriation change.............................................................................................. 120

Effect of score increase and dollar devaluation.................................................................. 123

Fiscal year 1980 European military construction pro gra m............................................... 76

Fiscal year 1980 infrastructure request, determination o f ................................................ 118

Fiscal year 1979 appro priation and fiscal year 1980 target request.................................. 72

Fiscal year 1979 supplemental for N AT O......................................................................... 131

Infrastructure:

Allied commitment t o ..................................................................................................... 121

Backlog............................................................................................................................ 123

Procedures........................................................................................................................ 128

Slice XX XI................................................................................................................... 75

Long-range infrastructure prog ram ....................................................................................... 128

Long-term construction p rogram .......................................................................................... 122

Long-term defense program................................................................................................... 121

Military construction needs in Europe............................................................................... 72

NATO:

Fun ding process.............................................................................................................. 106

Fiscal year 1980 program that supports request............................................................ 120

Long-term defense program (LTD P)......................................................................... 75

Slice gro up ....................................................................................................................... 119

Offset progr am......................................................................................................................... 124

Oil supplies.............................................................................................................................. 131

Prefinancing of NATO pro jects.............................................................................................. 129

PO MC US................................................................................................................................. 123

Renegotiation of percentag e................................................................................................... 118

3-Percent increase in defense s pend ing................................................................................. 121

United States:

Mission to NA TO............................................................................................................ 107

Prefinanced pro jec t......................................................................................................... 125

Role in NATO alliance................................................................................................ 74

Special program

Unilateral funding........................................................................................................... 130

Defense Posture in the Pacific and Related Construction Requirements

Briefing by Brig. Gen. Roderick D. Re nick ....................................................................... 151

Defense posture in Pacific ar ea ..............................................................* .......................... 136

DoD dependents in Ko rea .................................................................................................. 140

Gov ernm ent of Japan cost-sharing progra m...................................................................... 183

Korea and Jap an................................................................................................................... 188

Mission forces and the base st ructu re............................................................................ 188,190

No rth Korea reassessment................................................................................................... 191

Pacific Air Forces briefing—L t Col. William F au st......................................................... 180

Petroleum storage facility, Wake Is la nd ............................................................................ 191

Phasing of withdraw al.......................................................................................................... 190

Questions submitted by Senator H udd leston..................................................................... 188

Range of Soviet Backfire bomb er....................................................................................... 144

Status of forces in K orea..................................................................................................... 190

National Guard and Reserve Forces

Adequacy o f the bud get..............................................................

Additional requirem ents...... ~.....................................................

Budget prioritie s...... ..................................... ~...........................

Budget req uest................................. ........................................ .

Committee concerns ................ ........... ........ — ........ ■■..............

Concluding remarks..................................... ...............................

Effects of construction on personal levels.................. ...............

Fiscal constraints..... ........... . ........... .... ...... -........... .................

274

276

271

193

259 

233

260 

265
Vll

Kentucky programs.......................................

Mission changes.............................................

Mission of Army R ese rve.............................

National G uard contributions in peacetime.

Naval Air Station, Memphis, T enn..............

Priority for early deploying u nits.................

Tennessee projects.........................................

fagt

263

273

210

265

267

265

270

Str at eg ic Systems

Air Force strategic programs ...............................................

Air-launched cruise missile (A LC M) ..................................

Air mobile basing mod e...............................................

Community im pact at Kings Ba y................................

Executive session..........................................................

GLC M ...........................................................................

Kings Bay:

Community impact a t...................................................

Program review .............................................................

Subm arine sup port facility a t.......................................

M-X:

And S ALT.....................................................................

Deplo ym ent..................................................................

ICBM b asing.................................................................

Overview briefing on program .............................................

Pro gra m.................................................................................

SALT im plication s...............................................................

Soviet th re at..........................................................................

TRIDEN T:

Alternatives...................................................................

Community im pact assistance .....................................

East coast basing of.......................................................

Military construction....................................................

Program sche dule.........................................................

Supplemental inf orm ation..........................................

United States:

Efforts............................................................................

Policy .............................................................................

Navy M ilita ry Construction Program

......... 311

311, 335, 340

......... 337

......... 309

......... 313

......... 335

......... 309

......... 307

......... 309

......... 341

......... 336

......... 340

......... 314

312, 314, 323

......... 338

......... 316

......... 308

......... 310

......... 308

.......... 284

......... 307

.......... 284

.......... 322

.......... 320

Alaskan inte rtie.......... . ......... . ............................................

Availability o f skilled pers on nel.......................................

Com petition with private in du stry...................................

Construction m arket co nd ition s.......................................

Effects of inflation...............................................................

Energy conservation............._........ . ................................. .

Levels of ship m ain ten ance........................................ ......

Living facilities............................................... ...................

Major changes in th e fle et.................................................

Marine C orps pr og ram........ ........... . ........... .....................

Mayport-Sima ......................_............................................. .

Naval station, Keflavik—Geo thermal heating.................

Naval Air Station, Le mo ore ..............................................

New ships .................. ........... . ...........................................

Occupational safety and health prog ram.........................

Orote ammunition wharf, G ua m ......................................

Other programs.......... .... .................... ........... . .................

Pearl Harbo r-S ima................................................. ...........

Progressive o verhaul....................... ........ ................ . ......

Pollution abate men t___ __ _______ ____ __ ___ _____

Return of fleet to Long B each.......... ............... ..................

................ 369

............... 392

................ 392

............... 343

................ 366

................ 368

................ 372

................ 366

................ 372

............... 395

................ 374

........ ....... 370

................ 393

................ 372

................ 345

....... ....... 394

________ 345

............... 373

............. 373

................ 367

________ 393
viii

Page

Ship maintenance p rogram .................................................................................................. 374

Shore interm ediate maintenance activ ities......................................................................... 371

TRI DENT:

And POSEIDON pr ogram s......................................................................................... 395

Basing in the Atlantic.................................................................................................... 397

Determination in basing............................................................................................... 396

Subm arines.......................................................................................................... ;........ 396

Air Force Military Construction Program

Air field co nstruction........................................................................................................... 405

Budget re qu est...................................................................................................................... 399

Design status of 1980 projects.............................................................................................. 403

DoD STS de velopment and acquisition:

Fu nd ing ................................................................................................................................. 412

Responsibilities..................................................................................................................... 410

Effects of in flat ion................................................................................................................ 420

Energy conserv ation............................................................................................................. 421

Energy conservation and pollution a ba temen t.................................................................. 401

Engine problems................................................................................................................... 404

Facility energy program ........................................................................................................ 401

Flight sim ulato r facilities................................................................................................. 400,422

Johns on S pace Ce nte r.......................................................................................................... 405

Joi nt surveillance sys tem ...................................................................................................... 423

Major shuttle milestone sch edules....................................................................................... 411

New missions........................................................................................................................ 420

Overseas const ruc tion.......................................................................................................... 423

Panama Canal constru ction.................................................................................................. 424

Personnel housing ch art s...................................................................................................... 417

Space transp ortation system..................................................................................... 400 ,402,40 6

Thrust aug mentation............................................................................................................ 403

Unaccomp anied enlisted housing........................................................................................ 415

Army Military Construction Program

Budget re qu est.................................................................................................................. 427,4 78

Budgeting for base realincments......................................................................................... 497

Child care c enters................................................................................................................. 488

Comm unication s facilities.................................................................................................... 486

Distribution and storage co nce pt......................................................................................... 498

Doctor shortage.................................................................................................................... 493

Energy conservation............................................................................................................. 480

Fort C am pb ell...................................................................................................................... 493

Construc tion................................................................................................................. 495

Ho spita l......................................................................................................................... 495

Fort Kno x.............................................................................................................................. 495

Gen eral bu dge t adequacy..................................................................................................... 479

Hardstand pavin g................................................................................................................. 486

Honcnfels con struction........................................................................................................ 485

Impact o f fiscal year 1980 bu dg et........................................................................................ 480

Korea realinement activity................................................................................................... 487

Lexington Blue Grass Army De po t..................................................................................... 497

Magnitude o f repro gram ing................................................................................................. 479

Nonbu dge ted projects.......................................................................................................... 494

Organization studies............................................................................................................. 498

Overseas p rog rams ............................................................................................................... 484

Pollution abatem ent............................................................................................................. 481

Powerplant conversion......................................................................................................... 485

Questions subm itted by Senator Hudd leston..........„......................................................... 499

Review o f functions of Chief of Engineers......................................................................... 448
IX

Pag e

Sunny Point, N .C -............................................................................................................. 482

Rank ranges...................... ............................................................................................... 497

Tank training facility...... _....................... ......................................................................... 497

Tripler Army Medical Center, Hono lulu......................................................................... 491

Troop housing.................................................................................................................... 481

o