Page images
PDF
EPUB

CONFERENCE REQUIREMENT OF CERTIFICATE Senator STENNIS. We had that up in the conference lately and settled it on the basis that we would include these facilities unless it was certified that, in view of all the facts in that area, it wasn't better.

HOUSE DELETION OF PROJECT

General SHULER. Yes, sir. We like that solution, but the House Appropriations Committee has said if you don't put them in you don't get the money.

Senator STENNIS. Just took it all out?
General SHULER. Just took the money out for the entire hospital;
Senator STENNIS. All right, the next item.
General SHULER. The next item is tab J.

yes, sir.

CONFERENCE REQUIREMENT OF CERTIFICATE

Senator STENNIS. Pardon me, are you going to make a certificate on this as we settled it in this other recent law?

General SHULER. Yes, sir.
Senator STENNIS. I believe it requires the Secretary of Defense.

General SHULER. The Secretary of each service, I believe it says, sir.

Senator STENNIS. You had better get something over here to that effect, then, if you expect us to act on it.

General SHULER. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. That is up to you. I am not telling you what to certify. You know that. If that is your position, you had better put it on record.

General SHULER. Yes, sir.
(A letter and justification statement follow :)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Washington, D.O., August 12, 1965. Hon. JOHN STENNIS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appro

priations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR STENNIS: Section 610 of the recent Conference Report on Military Construction Authorization, Fiscal Year 1966, contained a provision relative to the inclusion of obstetrical facilities in all future hospitals unless specific justification was made by the Secretary concerned.

In the request for appropriations now before your subcommittee, there is an item for the construction of a hospital at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Ind. After a thorough study, obstetrical facilities have been omitted in the planning of this hospital on the basis that adequate facilities were readily available in the civilian community, no undue hardship would be imposed upon the military personnel or their dependents and it was the most economical way to provide this service.

Attached is a more detailed justification for omitting obstetrical facilities from the proposed Fort Benjamin Harrison hospital. Sincerely yours,

STANLEY R. RESOR,
Secretary of the Army.

DETAILED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE OMISSION OF OBSTETRICAL FACILITIES An exhaustive study of medical workloads and facilities was conducted at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Ind. Findings and conclusions were that omission of obstetrical facilities would effect considerable economies with no undue hardships being imposed upon the patients. The reasons for omitting such facilities are as follows:

(a) The requirement for obstetrical facilities in this hospital would be based upon an average of 27 live births per month which results in a daily average of 4.4 beds occupied by obstetrical patients. This is a small obstetrical workload.

(b) The operation of an obstetrical service for such a small number of patients is an expensive and uneconomical operation. For example, in a cost study of obstetrical care in Army hospitals, it was found that the average cost per case was $283.60. The cost per case at Valley Forge General Hospital, where the workload is comparable to Fort Benjamin Harrison, was $573.36. A similar high cost per case at Fort Benjamin Harrison Hospital could be expected.

(C) Fort Benjamin Harrison is located in the environs of Indianapolis, Ind. Many of the assigned personnel live throughout that city. A study showed many of the obstetrical cases at Fort Benjamin Harrison Hospital lived closer to civilian hospitals where obstetrical care was available than to the hospital at Fort Benjamin Harrison. If these obstetrical cases had been given permits to use the civilian hospital, as authorized under provisions of the Dependent Medical Care Act, adequate care would have been immediately available to them with no undue hardship.

(d) The survey by the Department of Defense team showed there is a capacity within the civilian community to assume the Fort Benjamin Harrison obstetrical workload. This capability does not exist for general medical and surgical type care. Therefore, beds were programed for dependents for this type of care.

(e) The costs of providing the necessary facilities such as a post-partum ward, an obstetrical suite, nursery and obstetrical clinic in the Fort Benjamin Harrison hospital would be $346,000.

(f) A large staff is required for a relatively small patient workload. Staffing requirements in the Fort Benjamin Harrison Hospital to provide 24-hour, 7-dayweek coverage is as follows: One obstetrician; seven nurses; and nine subprofessional personnel.

COMBAT VEHICLE SHOP RESTORATION, ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT, ALA.

[blocks in formation]

Quantitatively, normal peacetime requirements for overhaul of combat vehicles can be satisfied at the five Army combat vehicle depot maintenance shops with support from commercial sources. This concept does not allow for quick reaction to special requirements generated by international developments in the present world situation. This project would allow the subassembly to be overhauled concurrently with the overhaul of the main vehicle instead of the use of a substitute item. This project is concerned with satisfying qualitative requirements.

The space in the combat vehicle shop which is currently being used for overhaul of subassemblies, such as engines, transmissions, and power train, does not have proper physical and environmental characteristics that are necessary for the production of high-quality products on precision machine tools. Vibration caused by heavy tanks on floor slabs and through movement of 60-ton overhead cranes which are constantly moving heavy subassemblies, together with dust and grit generated during the cleaning and processing operations, does not permit machine finishes to the close tolerances required to be provided. The rejected items cause frequent delay and halting in the main assembly line.

The provision of adequate subassembly capability will minimize the requirement for maintaining new subassembly items in stock to replace items awaiting overhaul.

General SHULER. At tab J there is a request to restore a combat vehicle shop in Anniston Army Depot, Ala.

Senator STENNIS. What kind of combat vehicles is that, General?

General SHULER. These are mostly tanks, armored personnel carriers, and tanks. We have here a condition where we do not have the proper physical and environmental characteristics for the shop. We

vibration caused by heavy tanks on the floor slabs and through movement of 60-ton overhead cranes which are constantly moving heavy subassemblies, together with the dust, grit generated, and so forth. We want to fix this place up, sir, so that we can completely handle our combat vehicles that go through here, because they end up in the fighting zone.

Senator STENNIS. Proceed.

CONCURRENT OVERHAUL OF SUBASSEMBLY AND MAIN VEHICLE

General SHULER. The main reason for this shop, sir, is to allow us to overhaul the subassembly concurrently with the overhaul of the main vehicle. This gives us a more rapid turnover of this piece of equipment.

Senator STENNIS. This is one of your main depots for such work? General SHULER. Yes, sir.

SPARE PARTS SHORTAGE

Senator STENNIS. General, we have given you this money here for years, these high-priced shops. It appears to me you have to have a lot of them, however, I know they are important. In another phase of this program we get into the fact that often you are held up a long time because you can't get spare parts. I know our men have ran down a lot of informtaion on this. Mr. McNamara thinks it is all a mistake, but I don't know who is right. Your men in the field are the ones who told us about these things. It is very discouraging to know that you don't have a system that will keep the spare parts moving and available. We ran across cases where months and months a requisition would be pending. I don't remember any on tanks particularly.. Do you know anything about that? Have you run into anything like that? It is out of your field of operations, I know.

General SHULER. Yes, sir; it is. I do know this, that in this particular shop you would not find that. Where you find the condition that you describe, sir, is further out in the field, out toward where the combat troops are. That of course is accounted for by the system and the logistic environment in which it has to operate, the long distance, and so forth. There would not be any of that, sir. This is convenient to the States and we can get the required number of spare parts under the system.

Senator STENNIS. This is such a major operation. You don't have a supply line problem there?

General SHULER. This is what it amounts to; yes, sir.

STATEMENT BY Hon. John SPARKMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

ALABAMA

Mr. Chairman, I am here to urge the subcommittee to restore the item for an important maintenance facility for the Anniston Army Depot. The House Committee did not approve $837,000 in requested funds for the facility-labeled in Army nomenclature as "Combat Vehicle Shop, Conversion.” In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this budgeted item, approved in the authorization bill, should be funded.

As the military witnesses have also pointed out, this project would permit the Army to overhaul combat vehicle subassemblies—such as engines, transmissions and power trains simultaneously with overhaul of the main vehicle. Concurrent overhaul of subassemblies would avoid the need for substitute items in replacement and would reduce stock requirements of subassembly items.

The space now in use for subassembly overhaul is just totally inadequate. The working conditions, involving heavy vibrations and the presence of dust and grit, will not allow machine finishes to the fine tolerances required on the subassemblies. The resulting heavy rejection rates now current on subassembly items often cause delays on the main assembly line.

The requested additional facilities would correct these present shortcomings, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the subcommittee will give its most thoughtful consideration to approval of this item.

Thank you for this opportunity to present the case for this item for a highly significant addition to the broad capabilities of the Anniston Army Depot. I urge its approval.

CONVERSION OF EXISTING BUILDING TO POL LABORATORY, NEW CUMBERLAND ARMY

DEPOT, PA.
Installation: New Cumberland Army Depot

[blocks in formation]

REASONS FOR RESTORATION REQUEST Prior to selecting New Cumberland for locating the laboratory, other installations in the 1st and 2d Army areas were considered. None have more adequate facilities for establishing a laboratory than those which exist at New Cumberland Army Depot. Since the proposed building is an unused maximum security prison, it was preferred to use this instead of converting needed warehouse space at other installations.

The Department of Navy and the Department of Air Force were contacted concerning the availability of testing facilities or acceptance of a portion of the Army petroleum mission. The Navy and Air Force confirmed that their petroleum laboratories, which would be capable of supporting the Army's testing requirements, are fully utilized and they could not assume any additional workload on a permanent basis without additional space, personnel and equipment.

The only Navy and Air Force laboratory locations within the geographic area of the 1st and 2d Army, which is the area being served, are unable to support the Army's mission and are not as centrally located as New Cumberland. À central location is preferred in order to reduce travel expenses of the field surveillance people who utilize the services of the laboratory and to reduce the shipping distance of petroleum samples.

Senator STENNIS. The next item.

General SHTLER. The next item is “tab” K, which is a POL laboratory where we wish to convert a building. This is the New Cumberland Army Depot in Pennsylvania. This is related,

This is related, sir, to the transfer of this mission from Schenectady Depot. We have annnounced already that we intend to close out Schenectady, I believe, next year. We have

to have a place for this mission. We studied the entire system. This is the best place to put it. We take an existing building and with a reasonable amount of money we will rehabilitate it for the mission.

Senator STENNIS. Why did the House deny it? What reason did they give?

General SHTLER. They denied it, sir, because they said the additional consideration should be given to locating these functions at another installation where more adequate facilities might be available as well as combining a portion of the additional mission with similar requirements of the Navy and the Air Force. They confirm that their petroleum laboratories which would be capable of supporting these requirements are fully utilized and they could not assume any additional workload from us.

We maintain that we have studied all the places to put this and this is the best place and the most economical place to put it. That is our position, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Have you ever certified anything to the Navy and the Air Force and they could find space which could help you out?

General SHULER. Sir, we have a great number of places where we help them and the other two services help us. Airfields are a good example.

Senator STENNIS. I imagine that is true. We don't hear about those.

General SHULER. Without asking for the work, sir, I bet it would look very good in the record to show things like that, because it does happen, indeed.

Senator STENNIS. All right, the next item. Is this a companion to your case ?

[blocks in formation]

REASONS FOR RESTORATION REQUEST The selection of New Cumberland Army Depot as the relocation site for mission elements from Brooklyn Army Terminal was not an arbitrary decision, but was the result of a study which considered other installations on the east coast as well as commercial space. It was determined that relocation to New Cumberland Army Depot would be the most economical and operationally feasible site. the result of increasing loss of experienced personnel due to the announcement of the proposed move of the mission from Brooklyn Army Terminal, it was decided that the move should be expedited. Personnel together with their records and automatic data processing equipment were physically moved to New Cumberland Army Depot and the activity was fully operational on July 19, 1965. These personnel and their equipment are housed in warehouse space which has been provided with minimum facilities as an interim measure until permanent facilities are provided under this line item.

Sixty-eight families gave up their homes in the Brooklyn area and entered into new rental and sales agreements. Another relocation would pose an undue hardship on these experienced employees. The additional personnel required to support this mission have been obtained from former employees of Olmstead Air Base which is being closed.

« PreviousContinue »