Page images

it solid with ships having long-term potential but low mobilization priority. Since less maintenance work will then be performed, this will make it possible to release for more important assignments 476 military personnel now assigned. The nature of the remaining maintenance work is such that it can be substantially performed by civilian contractors. This will furnish employment for contractor personnel, estimated at about 145 people.




This site was formerly an Army Air Corps field declared surplus and deeded to the city of Port Isabel in 1950. It was acquired in 1956 by donation from the city to provide a gunnery staging station in support of flights of F-9F aircraft based at Chase Field and Kingsville Field. The short range of the F-9F made staging necessary to allow adequate time over the gunnery practice areas along the coast between Corpus Christi and Port Isabel.

In 1959 the F-11F became available for this training. Its longer range and speed makes staging at Port Isabel unnecessary. At the same time, there has been (1) a reduction in the Navy student training rate (from 3,300 to 1,900 students per year) caused by reduced requirements for pilots; and (2) changes in weapons from guns to rockets and missiles. Thus the staging mission at Port Isabel has disappeared, and no alternative use for the activity exists. The Air Force station which has also been located at the site for use by an aircraft control and warning (A.C. & W.) squadron, is already in process of inactivation.

It is thus planned to inactivate NAAS, Port Isabel, in the near future, and declare it as excess and turn it over to the General Services Administration for disposition. The land and buildings had an acquisition cost of $9.3 million. By this action, estimated annual savings in operating expense of $400,000 will result and 170 military personnel will be released for other duty. Fifty-five civilian positions will be eliminated.



Harlingen Air Force Base was reactivated in 1952 as one of our navigator training schools needed to meet the requirements of the then 137-wing pro gram. With the decline in training rate in recent years, the school at Ellington Air Force Base (Houston) was closed in 1959. The decline has continued and in fiscal year 1962 a further reduction of 30 percent (from 1,700 to 1,200 student rate) is programed. Only two bases can be justified to handle this load, one for advanced training and one for basic training.

Mather Air Force Base at Sacramento is now the only advanced navigator training school.

The choice for consolidation lies between the Harlingen Air Force Base and the Connally Air Force Base at Waco, Tex.

The following considerations are pertinent to a choice between these two:

The facilities at Connally are more adequate than at Harlingen. This is illustrated by the fact that the total plant at Harlingen had an acquisition cost of $17.3 million versus $33.5 million at Connally.

Family housing is a substantial factor. At Connally there are 866 modern housing units on the base and ample housing in the Waco area. At Harlingen most of the family housing is classified as inadequate, most being coverted barracks, and there is little private housing available. The Air Force estimate of requirements, should Harlingen be retained, calls for constructing 1,600 units of family housing at a cost of $26.5 million.

Consolidation at Harlingen would be delayed for about one year beyond the period when Connally could be occupied because of the housing shortage. This would defer for one year the realization of annual savings of $4.8 million and tie up 1,547 military positions which could otherwise be realized.

An additional consideration is that Connally provides necessary administrative and flying support for the Tactical Air Command's 12th Air Force Headquarters located in a leased administrative facility in the city of Waco, Tex. Consolidation at Harlingen in lieu of Connally would require that the 12th Air Force Headquarters be relocated to some other installation where support would be obtainable.

It is thus concluded that the soundest choice is to consolidate basic navigator training at Conally. Either consolidation, however, will produce a net annual savings of $4.8 million in operating costs and release 1,547 military personnel for other duties.

The consolidation would be phased over the next year, thus providing time to give special assistance to the 679 civilian personnel affected. DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE SUPPLY MISSION AT THE NAVAL SUPPLY DEPOT, CLEAR

FIELD, OGDEN, UTAH, LEASE UNUSED FACILITIES OR DECLARE EXCESS The Naval Supply Depot, Clearfield, Ogden, Utah, comprises 837 acres and 8.5 million square feet of depot space which, in the past, has been a principal storage of general supplies in the West. With the reduction in general stock levels to support peacetime and mobilization requirements, and revised distribution procedures, Clearfield has been placed in a partial maintenance status. Today the depot is being used for the storage of mobilization reserves and as a base for several small supply functions, including hydrographic chart distribution and departmental industrial equipment reserve.

in planning the depot requirements for the next several years, it has thus been determined that full disestablishment of the supply mission at Clearfield would be an efficient step to contributing to the reduction of this excess. As a result, current stocks will be relocated on a phased basis to Utah General Depot, Stockton Annex of NSC Oakland, and the Oakland Army Terminal by fiscal year 1965. At that time the facility, which had an acquisition cost of $34.1 million, will be available for declaration as excess or, if more advantageous, for lease to commercial tenants (several tenants now occupy leased spaces which produce annual rentals of $327,000 per year).

This program will produce annual savings, beginning in fiscal year 1965, of $2.3 million in operating and maintenance costs. A total of 346 civilian and 19 military personnel will be phased out over this period. Special assistance will be given to assist civilian personnel to find other employment opportunities during the 3-year period of phaseout. DECLARATION AS EXCESS AIR FORCE PLANT NO. 55, GENERAL ELECTRIC, BURLINGTON, VT.

The 11,000-acre tract that is the site for Air Force Plant No. 55 was acquired during World War II. It was used as an artillery range, then a bombing range, and then as a plant site. Acquisition cost was $615,000.

General Electric is test firing aircraft armament at this location. The entire range is not needed for this purpose. Part of the property is under permit to the Vermont National Guard and a small area is used by the Girl Scouts.

It is planned to define the plant requirements and initiate action to dispose of the unneeded portion of the range (approximately 8,800 acres). The Department of the Army will assume custody of part of the property for National Guard purposes. A report of the unrequired balance to GSA for disposal is planned. Disposal will occur during next 3 years. No unemployment will result from this disposal.

RETURN TO ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, CAMP HANFORD, RICHLAND, WASH. This property, owned by the Atomic Energy Commission, has been used by the Army on a permit basis as a support base for air defense units assigned to the defense of the Hanford AEC facility. Since the air defense units have now been inactivated and no further Army use is foreseen, action is planned to prepare the property for return to AEC custody. The full phaseout will be completed by June 30, 1963.

Release of this facility will produce annual savings of $2.2 million when maintenance activities are terminated and the civilian force of 227 is released. Military personnel, numbering 288, will also be reassigned.

The above plans were made known to employees, local and congressional interests on February 23, 1961.

INACTIVATE MOUNT RAINER ORDNANCE DEPOT, TACOMA, WASH. The Army ordnance supply and maintenance system in the Western States contains six major facilities which are being utilized at only 60 percent of capacity. This is resulting in unnecessary costs estimated at $28 million per

year. Surveys have been made to select those installations which can be efficiently phased-out over the next 3 years by consolidating their inventories and activities into fewer locations,

It has been found that the Mount Rainier Ordnance Depot is one of the two best suited installations to accomplish these objectives. (Benicia Arsenal, Calif., is the other selected.) The Mount Rainier Ordnance Depot lacks the prerequisite safety area for storage of ammunition and missiles and thus cannot fulfill multiple-purpose Ordnance Corps storage and maintenance mission as is necessary for efficiency and economy. In calendar year 1964 when the phaseout is completed, the depot will be made available for use by Fort Lewis which requires more modern facilities for supply and maintenance. Any unused facilities will be placed in standby status. Annual operating savings of $12.6 million are anticipated by the Mount Rainier action.

The Mount Rainier Depot has 1,901 civilian positions, out of which a net reduction of 946 will occur after workload and payroll are transferred to other points. The reduction in employment will be accomplished over a 3-year period by normal attrition, transfer of employees with the mission, retraining, and other assistance in relocation and reemployment. A special personnel office will be established for this purpose.



This station is one of four in the west coast area which provides dega ussing services to ships operating in that area. The number of ships in the Bremerton area that require ranging and deperming services has decreased considerably in the past year. A majority of the ships in the Bremerton area operate regularly in other areas which afford satisfactory degaussing facilities.

It addition, it is planned to increase the mooring capability of the Pearl Harbor Degaussing Station to allow deperming of the large type ships. When this improvement is made, consideration will be given to full inactivation of the Bremerton Station.

By this action, annual savings in operating expense of $19,000 will result and 15 military personnel released for other duties. Only three civilian positions are affected.



These facilities were constructed on the contractor's property in 1942 at a cost of $1.3 million to increase the capacity to produce ship shaftings and forgings. The facilities have been under lease to Isaacson Iron Works. On March 3, 1961, the contractor exercised his option 4) purchase the facilities at the determined fair value of $800,000. The sale is subject to a 10-year national security clause.

Secretary MORRIS. May I pick up the chronology, as I understand it, at this point, sir? Mr. HÉBERT. Yes, sir.

Secretary MORRIS. We transmitted the 30 pages, which attempts to summarize very concisely the principal gains to be made by each of the actions and the general nature of the action.

Mr. HÉBERT. Now was that the same statement which was released to the press?

Secretary MORRIS. No, sir.
Mr. HÉBERT. It was not?

Secretary MORRIS. This was a much more greatly expanded statement than was ever given out publicly.

We have repeated the material in here, in many letters, however, to interested people on the Hill and elsewhere.

Mr. Gavin. What is the total amount of savings you think are effected by this?

Secretary MORRIS. $100 million per year, sir, in operations and maintenance expense, and about 21,000 military positions.

Mr. Gavin. Well, you say here, on page 4:

Simply to keep these installations open, regardless of their workload, we are expending almost 2 billionnow you say— per year for operations and maintenance.

Secretary MORRIS. Sir, we are talking of different figures.

The 2 billion applies only to the upkeep costs of some 1,000 current installations.

This is to give you simply an idea of how vast our total installations problem is.

The 73 actions announced affect savings of approximately 100 million per year in O. & M. costs and about 21,000 military personnel positions.

Mr. KITCHIN. Get back to the chronology.
Mr. HÉBERT. Let's have the chronology.

Secretary MORRIS. We did receive a call, sir, from your staff following the submission of these condensations, indicating that the data was not in full enough form in those cases in which it would appear you might have a particular interest.

We called on your staff-I did personally, and talked with Mr. Sandweg.

Mr. HARDY. Can we get the dates as we go, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary MORRIS. The date of our call was May 23.

Mr. SANDWEG. I believe—to get the chronology, if we are speaking of chronology, perhaps we should go back to Mr. McNamara's letter of May 10 and take it from there.

Secretary Morris. Fine, sir. That is what I am attempting to do.

We received the call from you, and immediately arranged to come and talk with you about the type of information.

Mr. SandwEG. Do you remember when that was you received a call from me, the date of that call?

Secretary MORRIS. I can't from the information at hand. I can from my office records.

Mr. SANDWEG. Would you supply th at later, then?
Secretary Morris. I would be happy to do it.
(The information is as follows:)
The call from Mr. Sandweg was on May 12, 1961.

Secretary MORRIS. At this time we informed Mr. Sandweg we would be happy to answer any specific questions on any specific installation, or if he would prefer, to select installations, and prepare more expanded statements.

The result was that we did agree, your staff and ours, upon some 10 installations for which material has been prepared and submitted.

The first two of these were the two Texas bases—Laughlin and

And that data was submitted to the committee I believe on May 23.
Mr. FORE. On the same day.
Secretary Morris. On the same day.
Mr. Gavin. The two Texas stations were what?
Secretary MORRIS. Harlingen and Laughlin, sir.
And this data was submitted in expanded form on May 23.
Mr. HARDY. If that is the end of your chronology!

I am through, Mr. Chairman, except for this one point that I raised.

The whole purpose of this point that I was trying to make is that you should have had available immediately the basis on which these decisions were made.

And I don't know any reason in the world that there shouldn't have been free and complete access to the committe of that data if it had been available.

Now that is the key to my whole point.

And if you had it, then I don't know why it even took those 3 weeks, approximately, for it to get up here, on these 10.

Secretary MORRIS. Sir, the complete and full information has been available since the 1st of March. And we have used these materials almost every day on one or more of these installations.

The only reason we suggested time, was: (a) Our pressures with hearings and other things, and (6) We wanted to spend several hours on each of the selected 10 preparing what we thought would be a more readable and useful document for your use, rather than asking you to come and look at a lot of work papers and other materials.

Your interest in some of these, we assumed, was our spelling out in some depth the nature of the personnel savings that can be achieved, and these are on work papers that have to be pulled together.

Mr. Hardy. You mean there wasn't any pulling of them together before the decision was made.

Secretary MORRIS. Yes, indeed.

The summaries have always been available and are contained in the 30-page submission that was furnished.

Mr. HARDY. That is all you had to start with, is what is in the 30-page submission?

Secretary MORRIS. With the backup sheets readily available for review by the Secretaries. And they were reviewed, sir.

Mr. Hardy. I don't care to pursue that any further, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KITCHIN. May I ask one question about that in that connection?

Mr. HÉBERT. Yes, Mr. Kitchin.

Mr. KITCHIN. The summaries contained in the 30 pages that you sent over first: was that the summary that was furnished to the respective Secretaries for their review and decision?

Secretary MORRIS. Sir, these were special summaries provided after the decisions had been made.

Mr. KITCHIN. Well, at the time the decision was to be made and the data presented to the respective Secretaries for their decision before it went to Secretary McNamara, what was the summary data presented to the Secretaries upon which they rendered their decision?

Secretary MORRIS. Sir, there were detailed worksheets. I sat personally, for example, with Secretary Stahr for an entire afternoon reviewing a long list of installations, with details as to their age, condition, investment, workload, and projected workload. And present was his Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, and his Assistant Secretary, Finance.

We discussed all of these things in depth. We reviewed the length of time over which studies were made. And we made a judgment

« PreviousContinue »