MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION, FISCAL YEAR 1966 MONDAY, MAY 3, 1965 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES AND OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C. The Committee on Armed Services and the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations met jointly, pursuant to recess, at 9:40 a.m., in room 212, Old Senate Office Building. Present: Senators Stennis (presiding), Inouye, Brewster, Thurmond, and Miller. Of the staff of the Committee on Armed Services: Gordon A. Nease, professional staff member, and Charles B. Kirbow, chief clerk. Of the staff of the Committee on Appropriations: Vorley M. Rexroad and Joseph Borda, professional staff members. Senator STENNIS. The committee will come to order. I have a brief statement. We are meeting this morning to continue our consideration of the military construction authorization bill for fiscal year 1966. We are now taking up title II, which relates to the requirements of the Department of the Navy. The principal witness is Adm. Harry Hull, Director of Shore Activities Development and Control Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. I believe that this is Admiral Hull's first appearance before the committee and I want to take this opportunity to welcome him. We are glad to have Admiral Corradi also who has been here many times before. He usually has strong testimony and gets about what he wants. Before taking any testimony, I wish to make very clear to all concerned that any proposed changes in your program must be submitted to this committee by letter and any testimony you desire to offer in relation thereto must be given at the proper time during your testimony. We simply do not have the time to hold additional hearings to straighten out miscalculations or changes of mind since the bill was submitted to the Congress last February 9, 1965. It seems to me you have had ample time to notify this committee of any really essential changes. I know some changes are necessary and we are going to consider them, but at the same time we cannot hold a rehearing on such changes. At this point in the record I would like to insert a tabulation, previously referred to on pages 71, 83, and 136, concerning items in the bill resulting from proposed base closures and consolidations by the three services: ARMY BASE CLOSURE PROJECTS There are $11.2 million for items related to the November 1964 base closure announcement, as follows: Included also is $3.9 million for items related to the December 1963 baseclosure announcement, as follows: There is $0.9 million for one item related to the April 1964 base closure announcement, as follows: Navy fiscal year 1966 military construction due to base closure announcement, NOTE. Additional requirements being considered for inclusion in future programs total approximately $10,060,000. List of Air Force bases scheduled for closing with book value and amount of new construction generated in fiscal year 1966 * Total book value of bases to be closed $992,400,000. 2 Includes $56,700,000 for Titan I facilities. 3 Includes $52,600,000 for Atlas F facilities. 4 Includes $51,300,000 for Atlas F facilities. Only the depot will be closed. Base remains active. Base remains active. Transfers to Navy. 'Includes cost of relocating training mission from Lowry AFB, to Ent AFB, Colo. Cost included in total cost for Schilling AFB. • Cost included in total cost for Lincoln AFB. 10 Cost included in total cost for Larson AFB. Gentlemen, we will start with the expectation of running until 12:30 if possible, and will have an afternoon session from 2:30 on. That is not a firm schedule, however. Apparently we will not be able to hear testimony on this bill tomorrow but even if we do or not, we will expect to resume on Wednesday. Have you gentleman finished before the House? STATEMENTS OF REAR ADM. HARRY HULL, U.S. NAVY, DIRECTOR, SHORE ACTIVITIES DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL DIVISION, OFFICE OF CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, AND REAR ADM. PETER CORRADI, U.S. NAVY, CHIEF, BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS Admiral HULL. We have finished with the House Appropriations Committee, sir, but not with the House Armed Services Committee. Senator STENNIS. You fully understand this. I believe the Navy presented its repetitive items at one time last year, did you not? Admiral HULL. Yes, sir. Senator STENNIS. It is very helpful, and I will ask you to proceed now. Admiral HULL. Mr. Chairman, may I first introduce into the record statements from Assistant Secretary Bannerman, Vice Admiral Ensey, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Logistics, and Rear Admiral Bennett, Assistant Comptroller of the Navy? Senator STENNIS. We will be glad to have them. (The statement of Assistant Secretary Bannerman follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. GRAEME C. BANNERMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS) Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is my privilege to have the opportunity of appearing before this committee today to present the Navy's military construction program for fiscal year 1966. We believe that our request for $513,593,000 in new authorization, including $10 million for emergency construction, represents the minimum necessary to provide proper support to the operating forces of the Navy and Marine Corps. Critical examination within the Department of the Navy and searching review by both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Bureau of the Budget have established the projects expressed in this program as firm requirements in the present world climate. We believe that, considered individually, each of the items in the fiscal year 1966 program is of sufficient importance to warrant authorization on its own merits and that, together, they constitute a particularly well-balanced effort. The $40.1 million by which our total authorization request for fiscal year 1966 exceeds that of last year is attributable to our increased emphasis in the long neglected area of personnel support facilities, and the first increment of a sorely needed shipyard modernization program. During the periods following World War II and the Korean conflict, technological breakthroughs resulted in dramatic advances in the science of naval warfare. To capitalize on these breakthroughs, it was necessary to concentrate on the provision of facilities directly supporting the newly developed weapons systems. This emphasis on the provision of new facilities having a direct bearing on combat readiness was accomplished at the expense of personnel support facilities. As a result, the Navy is faced with the problem of "block obsolescence" of its personnel support facilities, particularly barracks and messes. A large number of these are badly deteriorated, temporary structures of World War II vintage. Additionally, there are many barracks which are adequate structurally, but totally inadequate from the standpoint of habitability. |