Page images
PDF
EPUB

The naval shipyard at Long Beach is one of the three shipyards on the west coast that the Department of Defense has recently determined as essential to the Navy. Approximately one-third of the Pacific Fleet ships are home ported in the Long Beach area and it is the Navy Department's policy to overhaul ships whenever possible in their home port to reduce to a minimum separation of Navy personnel from their families. This yard has the capability and skilled civilian personnel available to repair the TERRIER, TALOS, and TARTAR guided missile systems. However, most of the space currently being utilized for a missile system repair are not designed for that purpose. The multiplicity of repair locations complicates the subsystem checkout and increases cost due to the duplication of effort. The possibility of meeting this workload by “farming out” work to local private industries was studied and was rejected due to the fact that there was a lack of skills; there were security problems; there was a split responsibility; and the requirement for rapid response did not exist. If other naval shipyards are required to support the Long Beach operation in part or to accomplish the total missile system workload, additional facilities will be required at those yards in excess of their present facilities to handle the extra workload. To separate the weapon system from the ship during normal overhaul is impractical. The final systems’ checkout of the weapon SyStem must be accomplished on a guided missile ship. The contract to commence the architectural and administrative plans on this item was signed on March 19, 1965. Captain Ginn is here from the Bureau of Ships. He can provide additional data, Mr. Chairman, if you would like it.

LETTER OF THOMAS H. KUCHEL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WEAPONS OVERHAUL AND TEST FACILITY, LONG BEACH NAVAL SHIPYARD, CALIF.

Senator STENNIs. I shall include at this point in the record a letter from Senator Kuchel, requesting restoration of funds for a facility at Long Beach Naval Shipyard.

(The letter follows:)

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, August 9, 1965. Hon. JOHN STENNIS, Chairman, Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR STENNIS : I have been advised unofficially that the House Appropriations Committee has deleted requested funds for provision of a weapons overhaul and test facility planned for the Long Beach Naval Shipyard.

The capability of this important shore establishment would be greatly increased if the desired additional shipbuilding, modernization, conversion, and repair potential were expanded as the Navy proposes. I do feel the requested $1,500,000 item appears warranted and would constitute a sound investment, especially since so many units of the fleet operate in Pacific waters and are based at California ports.

I regret my inability to be present at the session of the subcommittee when I understand this matter is likely to be reviewed, but I hope a complete record will be established regarding it.

With warm regards.

Sincerely yours, -
THOMAS H. KUCHEL,
U.S. Senator.

FLEET ACTIVITIES, RYUKYUs, OKINAwa

Senator STENNIs. Proceed, Captain.

Captain CowART. The next item is “Fleet Activities” at Ryukuys, Okinawa, for funding the bowling alley for $278,000 which was denied by the House. We covered this earlier in our testimony, sir. We would like to request the committee to restore this item.

Senator STENNIs. All right. The next item.

MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP PENDLETON, CALIF.

Captain CowART. The next item is our Marine Corps Facilities at Camp Pendleton; a general cut was made by the House. Senator STENNIs. They took out $214,000. Captain CowART. The House cut $214,000 from the $8,651,000 request for the 18 line items in the project. Senator STENNIs. Is that on a specific item? Captain CowART. There is no specific item mentioned, sir. Senator STENNIs. You can absorb this, can't you, out of $8,600,000? Rear Admiral CoRRADI. Such a cut could normally be absorbed, but our recent bidding experience in this part of California, Mr. Chairman, indicates that we have been utilizing our 5 percent increasing authority. Prices have been running higher. It is for this reason that we reclama this apparently small price cut. Senator STENNIS. Maybe you have so much out there, there is so much work to do for the Navy you can't get enough bidders. It seems to me you ought to be able to absorb that much out of the $8,600,000. Rear Admiral CoRRADI. In those areas where we thought we could absorb and the House imposed an across-the-board percentage cut, we have not submitted a reclama. In this particular part of the west coast, however, we have had poor bidding experience. For that reason we urge the restoration of this relatively minor cut. Senator STENNIs. All right. Put a special note on that one, Mr. Rexroad. NAVAL ACADEMY, ANNAPOLIS, MD.

Captain CowART. The next item, sir, is the Naval Academy in Annapolis. It is a general cut of $352,000 from the $13,652,000 for the science building. I will ask Admiral Corradi to speak on this one also, sir.

Senator STENNIs. Please proceed, Admiral.

Rear Admiral CoRRADI. Here we have progressed with our plans so that we have very good pricing information. We are deliberately cutting corners to meet the $13,652,000 estimates which we submitted to the Congress.

A further cut requires that we go back and delete other items in order to absorb the approximately $352,000 cut which has been imposed on us. I would urge that we restore this cut primarily to get the complete facility that has been carefully planned and that has been designed to meet the specific requirements of teaching mathematics and science to the young midshipmen.

There is nothing particularly flossy or elaborate about the building. It is just that the teaching of science, the high percentage of laboratory space vis-a-vis classroom space in a building of this kind runs the unit cost up. Senator STENNIs. You say now under your responsibility as a professional engineer and also as a naval officer that you have to have this extra money; is that right? Rear Admiral CoRRADI. Yes, sir. This is based not just on my perSonal opinion but on recent bidding experience. Senator STENNIs. You have been over all of it, and you know far more than we do. Rear Admiral CoRRADI. Yes, sir. In the past few months we have taken bids on the shop buildings at the Naval Academy and found we went over the estimated cost. Senator STENNIs. The next item, please.

NAVAL DISPENSARY AND DENTAL CLINIC, PEARL HARBOR, OAHU, HAWAII

Captain CowART. “Naval Dispensary and Dental Clinic” at Pearl Harbor. The House action was to deny funding for the entire project, $2,800,000, on the grounds that more detailed consideration is necesSary to determine the extent of the requirement for this facility and to achieve a more realistic utilization of existing permanent facilities of this nature than is contemplated in the program presented to the committee.

Admiral Riggs, from the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, is here to speak to this item. Admiral Riggs. o

Admiral RIGGs. Senator Stennis, I believe this was turned down on the basis of our planned use of the existing buildings in the event that we should obtain a new dispensary. A study was begun in 1962 by a committee under the Commandant of the 14th Naval District to determine whether or not a new dispensary should be built and the use of the older buildings. After a very thorough study the committee came up with the fact that a new dispensary was indicated and feasible.

They also indicated that certain usages be made of the other buildings which would be vacated in certain instances, and others would be utilized for other medical purposes. In this study they considered that a planned project to rehabilitate, to enlarge or to build certain facilities such as the Naval Dental Clinic, Submarine Base Dispensary, medical unit No. 6, and medical complex and replacement of a shipbased medical facilities, would amount to $3.4 million.

In lieu of this they preferred the new facility at $2.8 million which would mean a net saving of approximately $550,000. They also defined the personnel situation as a saving of 30 military billets which could be utilized in other facilities.

SAVINGS IN OPERATING COSTS

They indicated some Savings in the operating cost, but did not specify the amounts. I have no way of giving you an engineering figure on the amount of utilities that might be saved in this type of movement. They certainly would, in the new dispensary, provide us with a more specialized medical-dental treatment facility and staffing by specialists. Since this intended usage of the present facilities was dictated by higher authority, we note that the small facilities such as those between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet were to be utilized for other fleet personnel or minor storage or decontamination stations. Those that were larger, and the largest one, the present shipyard dispensary, would be retained. Now the present shipyard dispensary in 1964 had an outpatient workload of 91,000. This number is composed of the military people, the dependents, and the civil service personnel for the yard. It is overburdened. As a consequence, we need to move the dependents and the military sick call into the new facility and maintain this existing dispensary for the civil service personnel. Civil service personnel have complained that they have lost a lot of time by going to the present dispensary in its overcrowded conditions, losing time from their work. So the largest facility will be more fully and effectively utilized. This is the one that has the largest square footage in the entire group. Another move is the health and nuclear physics from building 213 into the old dispensary which will give them better utilization and also close proximity to the civil service personnel. At the same time this move will provide in the old building 213 a need to expand the preventive medical unit No. 6. They definitely need an enlarged laboratory capability so that this move will help in both the preventive medical unit and the healthphysics sections. * * FUNCTION OF NAVAL DISPENSARY

Senator STENNIs. Admiral, if I may interrupt you at that point, explain to us just what you mean by naval dispensary. Those words carry a certain meaning to me that means a good deal less than what we ordinarily think of as a hospital. Maybe I am mistaken—I don't know. Admiral RIGGs. The dispensary is used primarily for outpatient work. The new dispensary will provide only for outpatient work, but will have 10 beds in it for active duty personnel that can be retained for a few hours or for not more than 72 hours at the very most. But this is not a hospital type. Senator STENNIs. The $2,800,000 is a rather good sum of money just for a dispensary. Of course, you have a dental clinic in here, too.

PRESENT FACILITY

Admiral RIGGs. Yes; there is a naval dental clinic in here, too. Now the present dental clinic is a definite fire hazard. This contains 24 of the present dental group. But they will be moved into this new complex and provided with an adequate dental clinic. At the same time the dental clinic from the other areas, at Camp Smith and Fort Allen Dispensary, will be moved into this one facility, giving them an adequate 40 dental operating unit, as well.

In addition to that, there are four dental people who will be moved from the submarine base dispensary. This is the only portion of the buildings that will be demolished. This gives them an adequate dental facility as well and a centralized capability. Senator STENNIS. Thank you very much, Admiral.

LETTER OF HON. DANIEL K. INou YE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF - HAWAII

HEADQUARTERS BUILDING AND DISPENSARY AND DENTAL CLINIC, HAWAII

Senator STENNIS. At this point in the record, I shall insert a letter addressed to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee by Senator Inouye.

(The letter of Senator Inouye follows:) U.S. SENATE, CoMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, August 6, 1965. Hon. CARL HAYDEN, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : I have just received very distressing news from the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives to the effect that the House committee has decided to delete two very important items from the military construction appropriations bill, namely: (a) Headquarters building, Commander in Chief, Pacific—$2 million. (b) Dispensary and dental clinic, Pearl Harbor—$2,800,000. As a Senator from Hawaii, I have naturally spent much time in the Pearl Harbor complex and it was evident to me that a new headquarters building for CINCPAC was urgently needed, especially in light of our increased activities in the Pacific and Southeast Asia area. It was also evident to me, because Of the increased activity in Pearl Harbor, that a dispensary and dental clinic were urgently needed. The need for these facilities is not a result of the current VietIlam situation, but has existed for several years. I most respectfully request that the Senate Committee on Appropriations very seriously consider these deletions. I sincerely hope that your committee Will act to restore these two deletions. Most respectfully yours, DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. Senator.

Senator STENNIS. Is there anything else, gentlemen, on that item 7

Captain CowART. No, sir. . .
Senator STENNIS. Let us go to the next item.

NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Captain CowART. The next item, sir, is the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. We covered one item in the group of prior authorizations. That is the item that was in the 1966 program for $6,642,000 originally. The Senate Armed Services Committee cut this back to $5 million for authorization and the Subsequent House action was to deny funding of the $5 million.

On the basis that—

more adequate consideration should be given to meeting any requirement which might exist for a laboratory of this type through utilization of existing facilities within the Government and in private industry and nongovernmental institutions. The committee is not convinced of the desirability of locating this laboratory in the Metropolitan Washington area and will expect additional studies to include the economic feasibility of locating this and additional facilities that might be required at this laboratory outside this area either in whole or in part.

« PreviousContinue »