« PreviousContinue »
Mr. SHERIDAN. Yes. I think at that time I would be in a better position to answer, and I would furnish a comment with those statistics, so I think it would be helpful to the committee. Senator INouyE. I think it would be most helpful to this committee in its consideration. (The following information was subsequently submitted:) Military construction projects costing over $10,000 but not more than $25,000, (1) as contained in the fiscal year 1964 military construction authorization bill,
and (2) as obligated in fiscal year 1964 under the provisions of section 2674 of title 10, United States Code (minor construction).
Fiscal year 1964 mili- Fiscal year 1964 minor
Number of . Amount Number of Amount Number of . Amount projects (millions) projects (millions) projects (millions)
$10,000 to $15,000-------------- 0 0 753 $9.503 753 $9,503 $15,000 to $20,000-------------- 0 0 555 9.739 555 9.739 $20,000 to $25,000-------------- 0 0 736 16.883 736 16.883 Total projects (fiscal year 1964)------------- 0 0 2,044 36. 125 2,044 36. 125
Senator INoUYE. Do you have any further comments, sir?
Mr. SHERIDAN. I do not, Mr. Chairman.
Senator INoUYE. Then, Mr. Sheridan, I wish to thank you and your staff members for being so helpful to us this morning. Once again I would like to convey to you and to your staff the regrets of Chairman Stennis. He wanted to be here today, but he found that other responsibilities required his being elsewhere.
Mr. SHERIDAN. Thank you very much, and we appreciate your great courtesy too, sir.
Senator INoUYE. Thank you, gentlemen. The meeting is adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee recessed until 10 a.m., Monday, May 10, 1965.)
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION, FISCAL YEAR 1966
MONDAY, MAY 10, 1965
CoMMITTEE on ARMED SERVICES, AND
CoMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
The Committee on Armed Services and the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations met jointly, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room 212, Old Senate Office Building. Present: Senators Stennis, Young of Ohio, Yarborough, Saltonstall, and Thurmond. 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: Worley M. Rexroad and Joseph Borda, professional staff members. Senator STENNIs. Members of the committee, we will continue our hearing this morning by taking up title V of the bill which relates to family housing. If we conclude the family housing section in time, I hope we can take up title VII, “Reserve components,” later today. We have remaining, after these two titles, the Army and the outside witnesses. All right, Mr. Reed, do you have a statement?
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. REED, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (FAMILY HOUSING)
Mr. REED. Yes, sir; I do, Mr. Chairman. I am prepared to read it or highlight it. Senator STENNIs. Mr. Reed, we are always glad to have you read the statement, of course, but I wonder how long it is? Mr. REED. It is 12 pages, sir. Senator STENNIs. Well, would it suit you as well to put all of it in the record and then highlight such parts of it as you wish? Does that suit you all right? Mr. REED. Yes, sir. Senator STENNIs. All right, if it is agreeable to the members we will proceed in that way. Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to appear before the committee again this year. It is our purpose to cover the legislative proposals in title V of the bill. As usual, representatives of the military departments are present and will be ready to answer any questions on the specific items in the bill at the completion of the statement. The Department's primary mission in the field of housing is to assure that our service families are adequately sheltered. This responsibility is fulfilled by whatever reasonable means, either private or public, which are available to us. We are well aware of the tremendous resources made available to us in the past by the Congress and that it is this support which has generated our current inventory of 338,000 units of public quarters. These assets have done much to improve the livability conditions of these career military families. In the bill before you we are requesting authorization for 12,500 new family housing units. This is about the same level that we have asked for in the past few years. The committees have not been able to support our total requests in the past, and we fully recognize that there are valid reasons from their point of view which have necessitated their position on the matter. We do hope that, in the future, conditions will be such that we can gain approval for the allocation of resources which the Department believes is necessary. We feel that there are three basic reasons why the Government should see that the military forces are adequately housed. The first of these is that decent living conditions create a better professional military man—with his mind at ease regarding his family problems, he is better able to devote his entire being to his military mission. Although I am sure that we all can cite instances where a commendable performance by a military man was accomplished under adverse personal conditions, I think we would all agree that it is better if the men responsible for controlling our complex and sophisticated modern weapons systems are not beset with anxiety over their family housing conditions. Secondly, we feel that the Nation has an obligation to provide decent living conditions for the family of the military man who has pledged to risk his life for the common defense. We feel that adequate housing for his family is a small price to help pay for this type of dedication. Third, decent living conditions make a military career more attractive: it assists the military forces to retain qualified personnel in competition with higher paying civilian careers. It is this last point which we would like to discuss with you. This committee has heard from various witnesses during the posture hearings about the low rate of retention of junior officers and the low reenlistment rates. This decline in our ability to retain our highly skilled and trained personnel is a matter of record and is a concern to all of us. You have also been advised by many people over the years, including this witness, that adequate family housing is one of the foundation stones required to enhance career attractiveness. We have gone further and stated that additional military family housing would increase our retention rate. We are convinced that adequate housing is a critical factor in a man's choice of career. Unfortunately, we have not been able to back up this contention with any correlation of the facts available to us. e have attempted repeatedly to find a direct correlation between retention rates and family housing. All of our efforts to date have been to no avail. Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, a man's decision to either make a career of the military service or to return to civilian life is a complex one based upon many factors of which the family living situation is but OI)0. Thus, we are in no position to prove that an increase in adequate military housing will assure a direct increase in retention rates. We know that it is a factor in making a military career more attractive but how big a factor is unknown. We feel, however, that the Government must make the assumption that it is a significant factor and take a chance on the correctness of that assumption. If additional family housing can possibly stem the awesome ebbing tide of talent which is flowing from the services, it is well worth the investment involved in providing the 12,500 units requested. We are hopeful that the committee will be able to support the requested new construction program and to take this gamble with us. Perhaps adequate housing may be the key to reversing the trend of great numbers of our highly skilled people leaving the services. We wish to assure you that each of the projects presented for authorization has been reviewed in detail and constitute our most urgent requirements. Appended to this statement are the pertinent statistics and our analysis of each of the projects in this year's request. We are also requesting authorization for 600 trailer court spaces. In addition, another major category of our housing program concerns improvements to adequate quarters. This year, we are requesting $18.2 million for this purpose. This amount of money represents about one-third of 1 percent of the acquisition value of our existing housing inventory. We are also asking for authority to relocate 200 units of relocatable housing from Glasgow Air Force Base, Mont., to other military installations where there are housing shortages. Glasgow Air Force Base will be phased out and reported as surplus to the General Services Administration by July 1968; therefore, we need the authority now to go forward with the relocation of these units in an orderly fashion before that date. We estimate the cost of relocating the 200 units from Glasgow at $1.5 million. Taking into account the above proposals and the categories of minor construction and planning, we are requesting authorization for appropriation for construction-related functions of $245.9 million. Additionally, for support of military family housing, includin operating expenses, leasing, maintenance, and payment of debt an insurance premiums, we request authorization for appropriation of $489.7 million. This amounts to a total request for authorization of $735.6 million to cover all costs of the military family housing program for fiscal year 1966. We would like to explain some of our other legislative proposals which are in the bill before you. In section 502(a), we are requesting a change in the cost limits for housing for general officers. We wish to raise the cost limit to the 5-foot line on general officers housing from $24,000 to $26,000 in order that we may build as much quality into this category of housing as we do for all other military family housing. Concomitantly, we request that the total cost limitation in section 502(e) be raised to $32,000 to accommodate the proposed cost limitation increase to the general officers housing without penalizing site preparation or other supporting features. e are also requesting a change in section 502(d). Previously we had a limitation of an average unit cost of $17,500 per project. We propose that in lieu of a project being the controlling increment that this average unit cost limitation be applied to each military department's domestic program. We also request that the housing for the U.S. Military Academy at West Point be excluded from the $17,500 cost limitation. And I might add at this point that the Department of the Army is present to give you an in-depth presentation on that particularitem. In section 503, we propose a special exemption to existing cost and space limitations in order that two sets of representational quarters may be acquired. These quarters would be constructed or purchased for the commander in chief, North American Air Defense Command, Colorado Springs, Colo., and the commander in chief, Strike Command, MacDill AFB, Fla. Both of these positions involve exceptional representational responsibilities for the benefit of the United States, requiring dealings with the highest Government officials and foreign dignitaries. We request authorization of $100,000 for each of these sets of quarters whether they be constructed or purchased. In section 505, we are requesting a 1-year extension to the domestic leasing program. We are not requesting a change in the existing average lease cost of $160 per month but are asking that this average unit limitation be placed upon the military department’s overall leasing program rather than on an individual unit as is now the case. e also seek authority to enter into 7,500 leases with the option of a multiple-unit basis or a single-unit basis rather than the 5,000-unit limitation currently in law which is predicted upon an individual lease basis. Finally, in the legislative proposals of title V, we are continuing in effect the 5,000-unit limitation on rental guarantees contained in the present law. We have high expectations that this program will †. producing sizable numbers of oversea housing units in the near uture. This, gentlemen, then sums up the legislative proposals for title V. In conclusion, we would like to take this opportunity to express to you the appreciation of the Department of Defense for the committee's continuing support of the military family housing program. We know we share a mutual objective of having the program respond to the needs of our servicemen and to aid career retention, while at the same time assuring that it is managed in an economical, businesslike fashion. This committee, in particular, has been extremely helpful to us in the establishment of sound accounting and management procedures, and for this assistance we are most appreciative. Representatives of the three military departments are present to discuss their respective