Page images
PDF
EPUB

STATUS OF PRIOR YEARS’ PROGRAMS

Since receiving appropriations in October 1964 we have made excellent progress in getting the fiscal year 1965 program as well as the few remaining prior years' projects under contract. As of July 1, 1965, we had approximately 110 projects totaling $100 million unawarded in fiscal year 1965 and prior years' programs. We anticipate that during the current first quarter of fiscal year 1966 this will be reduced to approximately 35 projects totaling $40 million.

STATUS OF OBLIGATIONS

For fiscal year 1965 the Air Force was granted new obligating authority in the amount of $332 million (exclusive of family housing). This amount, with a carryover of unobligated balance from fiscal year 1964 of $332 million and adjusted by $1 million of reimbursements, provides a net fund availability of $665 million in the current fiscal year 1965. It is now estimated that obligations in fiscal year 1965 will total $456 million. This will leave a carryover of unobligated balances into fiscal year 1966 of $209 million. This unobligated balance of $209 million consists of the $100 million of approved unawarded items mentioned earlier, plus $109 million which will be required to complete approved projects actually started prior to July 1, 1965.

STATUS OF PLANNING AND DESIGN

Design of the fiscal year 1966 program was authorized in the early fall of 1964 and is well advanced at this time. As of July 1, 1965, overall design progress was approximately 50 percent, with preliminary design completed on more than 80 percent of the program. We expect to have final contract plans and specifications completed for the bulk of the program by October 1965. In view Of the progress to date and current momentum of the design effort we are COnfident that design of the entire program will be completed in time for all projects to be placed under contract during fiscal year 1966.

HOUSE APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE ACTIONS

The House Appropriations Committee has deleted certain projects from the Air Force request. We desire to rebut these deletions and additional information concerning these projects will be furnished to the committee by the Secretary of Defense. CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement on the Air Force military construction appropriation request for 1966. We are prepared to try to answer any questions the committee may desire. We are prepared to discuss each project contained in this request. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members Of the COmmittee.

TABLE I.—Fiscal year 1966 military construction appropriation

Prior years | Fiscal year | Fiscal year and perma- 1966 1966 nent author- authori- appropriaization zation tion Design-------------------------------------------------------- $20,000,000 0 $20,000,000 Inside the United States-------------------------------------- 20, 582,000 || $260,733,000 281,315,000 Outside the United States------------------------------------ 4,269,000 ,876,000 63, 145,000 Minor construction------------------------------------------- 15,000,000 0 15,000,000 Support activities-------------------------------------------- 2, 100,000 0 2, 100,000 Total--------------------------------------------------- 61,951,000 || 319,609,000 381, 560,000

TABLE II.-Department of the Air Force, fiscal year 1966 military construction appropriation for the Active Forces—Summary by command

Inside the United States:
Air Defense Command
Air Force Accounting and Finance
Air Force Logistics Command
Air Force Systems Command
Air Training Command-----

Air University
Alaskan Air Command
Headquarters Command

Military Air Transport Service-- -
Pacific Air Forces

Strategic Air Command
Tactical Air Command

U.S. Air Force Academy——
Aircraft control and warning system

Ballistic missiles/space systems-------------------

Various classified -

Total, inside the United States-

Outside the United States:
Air Defense Command-----

Military Air Transport Service

Pacific Air Forces---------------------------------
Strategic Air Command---------------------------
U.S. Air Forces in Europe--------------------------
U.S. Air Forces Southern Command----------------

[blocks in formation]

$11,867,000

225,000 47,623,000 14,418,000 35, 839, 000 1, 511,000 12, 740, 000 7, 386,000 12, 182,000 3,711, 000 34, 372,000 28, 613,000 15,082, 000 1, 377,000 48,386,000 5, 983, 000

–––– 281, 315,000

970,000

TABLE III.-Department of the Air Force, fiscal year 1966 military construction appropriation—Summary by program element

Amount Percent (millions) of total Strategic Retaliatory Forces: ($36.5) (9.6) Strategic Forces------ -- ---- 18.2 4.8 Strategic Support------ 18.3 4.8 Continental Air and Missile Defense Forces: (25.5) (6.7) Interceptor aircraft.----------------- ... 6 .2 Control and warning-------------- - 12.0 3.1 Pefense support--------------------------------------------------------- 12.9 3.4 General Purpose Forces: (64.0) (16.8) Tactical aircraft-- 15.2 4.0 Tactical Air Command support----------------------------------------- 23.3 6.1 , ...Qverseas theater support--II 25.5 6.7 Airlift forces: (20.0) (5.2) Transport aircraft—- 11.5 3.0 Airlift support --- 8.5 2.2 Research and development: (57.8) (15.1) Test ranges 32.3 8.4 Research support- 25.5 6.7 General support: (177.8) (46.6) Training---- 51.5 13.5 Logistical support- 34.5 9. 1 Communications- - 20. 9 5.5 Medical facilities. - |-- 14.5 3.8 Other support – 19.3 5.1 Design----- 20,0 5.2 Minor construction 15.0 3.9 Access road---- 2.0 .5 Land acquisition ($25,000 and under)- - 1 -------------Total------------------------------------------------------------------ 381.6 100.0

TABLE IV.-Department of the Air Force, fiscal year 1966 military construction appropriation—Program by construction categories

Amount Percent of (millions) total Operational and training (including ballistic missiles)------------------------ $119.9 31.4 Maintenance--------------------------------- --- 31.3 8.2 Research, development, and test -- - 14.6 3. 8 Supply---------------------------------------------------------------------- 21.3 5, 6 Hospital and medical -------------------------------------- 14.4 3.8 Administrative-------- ------------------------------------- 30.0 7. 9 Housing and community- - 98.6 25.8 Utilities and ground improvements - 16.3 4.4 Real estate- - .2 -------------Design---------------------------------------------------------------------- 20.0 5.2 Minor construction---------------------------------------------------------- 15.0 3.9 Total 381.6 100.0

PROJECTS PENDING INVOLVING PRIOR YEAR AUTHORIZATION

General CURTIN. In addition to the items covered by authorization, which the committee previously heard, we have still pending before the committee 47 projects that involve prior years’ authorization. They total $24,851,000. We also have four projects of continuing authorization. That is minor construction, planning, access roads, and minor land.

Senator STENNIS. How many of those?

General CURTIN. Four projects which total $37,100,000. For the total of prior years and continuing authorization still to be reviewed by the committee, we have $61,951,000.

We are prepared to take those up initially, to be followed by a review of our reclamas, which involve 6 of these prior-year, projects plus 26 others that were in the authorization bill. A total of 32 projects involving $33 million are in our reclama.

So, we have about $100 million of projects to review, $61.9 million, the continuing and past authorization, and $33 million of reclama, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIs. You have everything in your statement that Mr. Rexroad might need?

General CURTIN. Yes, sir.

In addition, we furnished the committee additional information on each of the reclama items in a separate booklet. Colonel Fenlon will take up the individual items, Mr. Chairman.

HOUSE ACTION

Senator STENNIs. What did the House do with your $61,951,000? General CURTIN. Of the $61 million there were six projects deleted by the House which we will identify as we go along. Senator SALTONSTALL. They deleted six projects and $30 million for new items? General CURTIN. The 6 projects to which I refer plus 26 others which were in the new authorization bill makes a total reclama of $33 million, Senator Saltonstall. Senator SALTONSTALL. So there are 32 projects You are asking us to appropriate money for that are not in the House bill? looneral CURTIN. That is correct, sir. In the House appropriations 111. Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you. Senator STENNIs. Please proceed.

PLANNING AND DESIGN

Colonel FENLON. Mr. Chairman, the first item on page 20 is a continuing one of planning and design. SENATOR STENNIs. How much did you have last year? General CURTIN. Last year, Mr. Chairman, we had a total availability of $32.4 million, of which $28.5 million was appropriations and $3.9 million was carryover. Senator STENNIs...You are asking for only $20 million this year? General CURTIN: $20 million this year, Mr. Chairman, as it appears right now; with all of the extra planning requirements we may have to come back later for a reprograming request. Senator STENNIS. Did the House allow all this? General CURTIN. Yes. - Senator STENNIS. The next item.

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH

Colonel FENLON. The next items is at Hill Air Force Base, on pa 85. This provides for the alteration of an existing facility to ...; a turbojet engine test cell capability, for testing the F-4C aircraft engines.

An additional test cell is required to accommodate the workload at this depot. This was authorized in last year's bill.

Senator STENNIs. Unless you say so, we will assume that the House left these in.

Colonel FENLON. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIs. Any that they have left out, you tell me. .

Mr. GIBBENs. On the test cell last year the House denied it and this is the reason it was not funded last year, for a further study. But they have approved it this year.

The Senate approved it last year, too.

Senator STENNIs. Very fine.

Colonel FENLON. This would be true of the next two items, also. The next one provides for alteration of existing space to provide an environmental controlled area for overhaul and calibration of the fire control systems of the F-4C.

The last item is required for logistical personnel who are supporting the currently assigned depot mission. This is for desk workers associated with responsibilities assigned to this depot. It is the conversion of the two logistics facilities.

Senator STENNIS. The next item.

KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEX.

Colonel FENLON. Our next item, Mr. Chairman, is at Kelly Air

Force Base in Texas. It is one item on page 111 in your book. This again is an item for logistics and administration type space for personnel associated with the management of the weapons systems at this. depot, the portion of personnel engaged in administrative functions. supporting the depot programs and is a conversion of space for logistics-type management people.

General CURTIN. This is in the same category as the previous item, Mr. Chairman, in that last year the House denied it for further study. This year the House did not question it.

Senator STENNIs. All right.

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO

none FENLON. Our next item is at Wright-Patterson Air Force 3.Se. Senator STENNIS. That last one that you were talking about was page 111? Colonel FENLON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. General CURTIN. $130,000. Colonel FENLON. That was 10,652 square feet at $130,000. Senator STENNIs. The next item. Colonel FENLON. The next item is at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. We have one item, on page 184 in your book. This item is the conversion of existing warehouse space to administrative space reo to provide a consolidated accounting and disbursement center or Wright-Patterson. This operation is now in two substandard buildings approximately 2 miles apart. The layout and separation of these buildings is an

« PreviousContinue »