« PreviousContinue »
HOUSE REPORT STATEMENT (P. 23) "The request of $2,983,000 for the construction of an aircraft maintenance hangar at this location is also denied. Further consideration must be given to utilization of additional facilities of this nature in the area including those available through use of the overhaul and repair department at the nearby Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Va."
RECLAMA Installation: Marine Corps auxiliary landing facility, Camp Pendleton, Calif.
REASON FOR RESTORATION REQUESTED (a) Information has been obtained from the Department of the Army to the effect that helicopter maintenance training facilities at both Fort Eustis and Fort Rucker will be completely saturated by June 1966. Army support of the Marine Corps training in the maintenance of the Iroquois helicopter would involve the construction at an Army base of a facility equivalent to the one proposed at Camp Pendleton. Therefore, no savings in construction costs would be realized through combining training requirements with those of the Army. Moreover, there would be the additional operating costs of transporting personnel from the west coast to the Army training facilities.
(b) The proposed building will house training equipment that is presently under contract and scheduled for delivery in March 1966. If this item is not approved, this expensive (about $600,000) equipment cannot be utilized in the training of personnel.
HOUSE REPORT STATEMENT (P. 23) “The request of $150,000 for an aircraft systems training building at the Marine Corps auxiliary landing field, Camp Pendleton, Calif., for the training program for the Iroquois helicopter is denied. Additional consideration should be given to combining these training requirements with those of the Army which utilize the same basic aircraft."
The proposed work involves the rehabilitation of substandard barracks spaces for 3,240 enlisted men.
The estimate of cost is based on an engineering study prepared by qualified engineers based on detailed examination of the work at the site and a thorough knowledge of local area construction costs. The proposed reduction of this estimate will necessitate the elimination of rehabilitation of spaces for approximately 570 men, thus leaving a deficiency of spaces for 1,125 men.
It is strongly requested that the proposed reduction of $590,000 be restored in order to permit provision of the 3,240 barrack spaces.
HOUSE REPORT STATEMENT (P. 23)
“The committee has approved $4,090,000 for facilities at the Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, N.C., including $3 million for the rehabilitation of barracks."
Installation: Marine Corps Air Facility, Santa Ana, Calif.
REASONS FOR RESTORATION REQUESTED (a) Marine Corps air facility, Santa Ana presently supports 116 helicopters. By the end of fiscal year 1966 the number of helicopters at this activity will have increased to 176. Additionally, at that time new model aircraft will have been phased in at this activity. The new aircraft are larger than those presently supported, and require more space for parking and taxiing. Parking conditions will become overcrowded to the extent that, due to reduced clearances between parked and taxiing aircraft, operations will be hampered, and will become hazardous at times. Failure to include this item in the fiscal year 1966 program will result in the use of severely overcrowded apron space for at least an additional year.
(6) The Bureau of Yards and Docks has provided an estimate of $3,000 to $3,200 as the additional cost of constructing the apron in two increments in lieu of a single contract for the entire requirement. The additional cost is for contractor mobilization for the second contract. Since the design for the first increment is essentially complete, no savings can be realized in design costs.
(c) Three of six outlets to be provided under the fiscal year 1966 line item "Aircraft Direct Fueling Station (ist Incr)” for $792,000, are to be sited adjacent to the outer end of parking apron No. 1 extension to be provided under this line item. Failure to restore funding to this item will make the utility of these three outlets marginal until the parking apron is extending.
HOUSE REPORT STATEMENT (P. 23)
"Funds are requested in the amount of $809,000 for the construction of the first increment of an aircraft parking apron required at the Marine Corps air facility, Santa Ana, Calif. Testimony before the committee disclosed that the cost of the overall requirement would be reduced if this apron could be constructed in a single contract. The request for the first increment is denied, and the committee will expect the complete requirement, if it is still a valid one, to be included in the fiscal year 1967 military construction program.”
Only one vehicle filling station is available at the station for providing fuel, motor oil, water, and air to the 920 pieces of transportation equipment assigned. This filling station is located 8 miles from the administrative area and 5 miles from the air operations area where the majority of vehicular traffic is concentrated. It requires 45 minutes to make a round trip to refuel a vehicle, and it is estimated that a total of 15 man-days is wasted daily for refueling purposes. Elimination of the long refueling run by construction of a new vehicle filling station in the operations area will save some $10,000 annually in terms of lost manpower and amortize the cost of the new filling station in 3 years. The existing filling station will continue to be used in support of vehicular operations in the industrial area of the station.
HOUSE REPORT STATEMENT (P. 24) “The requirements for vehicle filling stations, gatehouse, and employment office, and recreational facilities should be met through the utilization of existing facilities or other programs available to the Navy."
REASONS FOR RESTORATION REQUESTED (a) The existing cargo pier (pier No. 2) is the primary pier for unloading ship's cargo at Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads. Cargo unloading operations are severely hampered by the size of the pier. The pier is too short to permit unloading both the fore and aft cargo holds simultaneously. This necessitates casting off the mooring lines, taking the ship out, turning it around and again mooring the ship to remove cargo from the other cargo hold. This is a timeconsuming and expensive process. The pier is too narrow to permit more than one truck on the pier at one time. Further, the narrow width of the cargo pier restricts the maneuverability of the ship's cargo booms when two ships are handling cargo from both sides of the pier. Cargo handling operations are delayed while one boom operator waits until the other ship's boom is clear before moving his cargo onto the dock. This line item will expand the existing cargo pier from 38 by 397 feet to a 70- by 500-foot pier that will be capable of handling unloading operations safely and efficiently.
(b) In addition to the cargo pier, the station has a carrier pier under construction with a completion date of November 1966. This pier will meet the needs of deep-draft combatants operating out of the station. Cargo will be handled at this pier as circumstances permit. However, the limited availability of the carrier pier for handling cargo will not preclude the need for a separate cargo handling pier. The station also has a fuel pier which is not as wide as the cargo pier and consequently is inadequate for cargo operations when not being used by tankers.
(c) Berthing space is at a premium. The naval station is a key logistics base for the support of the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Range (AFWR). As the tempo of AFWR increases, the utilization of harbor facilities also increases. The increase, for example, during the period January 1964 to January 1965 was 74 percent.
HOUSE REPORT STATEMENT (P. 24) “Additional consideration should be given to the requirement for the construction of a cargo pier including maximum utilization of existing facilities.”
REASON FOR RESTORATION REQUESTED A proper gatehouse facility containing a security office and industrial relations office (IRO) with appropriate waiting rooms is urgently required by this station to correct a serious security problem. Existing facilities are completely inadequate to handle the volume of visitor traffic now experienced by the station and the situation will become worse when construction is begun on approved
military construction projects. Gate No. 1 is the easiest gate to reach by visitors to the station. The post is manned by a sentry operating out of a small booth. The security office is located 7 miles away at gate No. 3. Consequently, visitors must be sent to gate No. 3 for security clearance and a pass. The security problem is created when jobseekers are then sent to the IRO which is located 1 mile from gate No. 3. The jobseeker becomes a security problem when he fails to locate the IRO and must be rescued by the security force. This line will provide a proper gatehouse at gate No. 1. Only those persons who have a need to enter the station will be issued a pass. Jobseekers will be processed at the gatehouse.
HOUSE REPORT STATEMENT (P. 24) "The requirements for vehicle filling stations, gatehouse, and employment office, and recreational facilities should be met through the utilization of existing facilities or other programs available to the Navy."
REASON FOR RESTORATION REQUESTED The provision of adequate athletic and recreational facilities is essential to the morale and well-being of station and fleet personnel. The opportunity to participate in an organized sports event or an impromptu off-duty game is a necessity for shipboard personnel. The existing facilities at Naval Station Roosevelt Roads are insufficient and do not provide this needed wholesome outlet. This line item will provide additional fields and playing courts and will correct the deficiency and thus enhance the morale of the 4,000 assigned station and fleet personnel.
HOUSE REPORT STATEMENT (P. 24) “The requirements for vehicle filling stations, gatehouse and employment office, and recreational facilities should be met through the utilization of existing facilities or other programs available to the Navy."
NAVAL SHIPYARD, BREMERTON, WASH.
Captain Cowart. The next item is at the Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash., Bachelor Officers' Quarters with Mess. The House action denied approval for the $765,000 for a Bachelor Officers' Quarters and Mess.
Senator STENNIS. That brings us back here to the reclamas. Captain CowART. Yes, sir. We also submitted a reclama on the classified project at Kunia which we discussed in the executive session.
Senator STENNIS. Proceed.
Captain CowART. The House committee denied the funding for Bachelor Officers' Quarters with Mess at the Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash., on the grounds that the committee does not consider that adequate consideration has been given to the determination of the specific requirements for additional quarters at this installation. The activities in the Bremerton area supported by this BOQ include the Shipyard, Naval Hospital, Bremerton Reserve Fleet and Marine Barracks, with a total assignment of 161 officers. This does not include the variable number of transient officers from ships under overhaul at the Shipyard.
Records of onboard count of officers from the area and from transient sources indicate a firm requirement for 81 BOQ spaces with occasional peaks as high as 90.
In addition, a new shipyard mission has been assigned for POLARIS overhaul. This will bring additional officers to the yard. We can see that we will have a firm peak of 99 spaces, so we feel that the request for an 80-man BOQ is within the area of our requirement. We now have a substandard deteriorated building which forces the Navy to pay basic allowance for quarters for many officers in order that they may find adequate quarters off base. The old building will be demolished upon construction of the new building.
LETTER OF HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON AND Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, U.S.
SENATORS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
BACHELOR OFFICERS QUARTERS, PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, BREMERTON, WASH.
Senator STENNIS. A joint letter from Senators Magnuson and Jackson with reference to bachelor officers' quarters at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard will appear at this point in the record. (The letter follows:)
Washington, D.C., August 11, 1965. Hon. JOHN STENNIS, Chairman, Military Construction Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Appropria
tions, Washington, D.C. DEAR JOHN: The House Appropriations Committee recently deleted from the military construction appropriations bill an item for $765,000 for the construction of bachelor officers' quarters with mess at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Wash.
This project has the support of the Department of the Navy which has asked your committee that this money be restored in the fiscal 1966 funding program now before your subcommittee. We are writing in support of this request.
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is playing a growing role in our Nation's defenses, recently assuming its new assignment as the overhaul and repair base for our Pacific POLARIS fleet. It is continuing to do other important work in ship construction, repair, and modernization.
As pointed out in the Navy's report to you, the present bachelor officers' quarters and mess at Bremerton are badly deteriorated and have been described as a "firetrap." With no foreseeable decrease in base loading at Bremerton, the present facility is inadequate and inappropriate for the housing of naval officers now and in the future. No other suitable accommodations are available in the area. This 80-space facility is a minimum request to meet the needs.
We heartily support the reasons for restoration of this request given to you by the Department of the Navy and urge that these funds be restored. Sincerely yours,
WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senator.
NAVAL SHIPYARD, LONG BEACH, CALIF.
Senator STENNIS. The next item.
Captain Cowart. The next item is at the Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, Calif., for weapons shop. The House denied the funding for $1,950,000 on the ground that, the committee is not satisfied that the Navy has conducted adequate studies to determine whether or not this workload can be met in whole or in part at other naval shipyards on the west coast. It is also noted that at the time of the committee hearing, plans and designs for the construction of this facility had not been initiated. The request is, therefore, denied.