FAMILY HOUSING Question: The Family Housing Leasing Program was discussed in some detail last year, and the Conference Committee on the FY 81 Appropriations suggested that new construction versus leasing overseas should be considered. Your statement shows a slight increase in the number of leases for FY 82 and a small decrease in new construction units. Could you explain this with regard to the conference report language. Answer: The increase in the number of foreign leases for which we need appropriations is a result of previously authorized projects being completed under lease-construct contracts. Once beneficial occupancy is obtained, we must provide for the funding. Where there is a housing requirement in a foreign country, we conduct an economic analysis to determine whether leasing, construction, acquisition, or reliance on housing allowances is more advantageous to the United States Government. Based on such analyses, we have proposed for FY 1982, new construction at Incirlik, Turkey, and Greenham-Common in the United Kingdom. However, where housing is required and analyses indicate that leasing is the most cost-beneficial approach to take, we intend to proceed on that basis. The variables which favor construction over leasing or vice-versa, change from situation to situation. Accordingly, it would not be prudent to place total emphasis only on one approach. Question: I understand that the Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) has enabled many of our military personnel to improve their standard of living. What effect, if any, does this increased housing allowance have on the need for on-base family housing in the CONUS? Answer: The advent of the Variable Housing Allowance, or VHA, will mitigate the need for on-post construction and the domestic leasing program. The overall housing deficit will be reduced as a consequence of removing "excess housing costs" from our criteria used to determine deficits. Additionally, it is probable that higher graded personnel might find off-base living more attractive, thereby reducing the competition for the on-base housing now in the inventory. Question: In this regard, how are family housing requirements determined? Answer: The capacity of the local housing market to meet the military need is determined by the installation based on surveys conducted using established criteria, and on its consultation with government agencies and other organizations knowledgeable of local housing conditions. The survey uses sampling methods to solicit data from military families on: separation status; bedroom requirements; condition of the unit occupied; location of the unit and cost. Based on projected strength, a future deficit or surplus condition is then determined, and the information is considered by the military service headquarters in establishing proposed projects in priority order. With the advent of the Variable Housing Allowance, cost is no longer a factor used in determining the need to build on-post. All projects in the FY 1982 program are justified on the basis of a deficit which discounts the cost criterion. Question: What is the average cost per unit of new construction family housing? Answer: The average cost per unit of new construction in the FY 1982 program is $79,728. Question: Quality of Life The issue of child care centers being constructed with appropriated funds was discussed in some detail last year, and the Appropriations Committees denied the request. The FY 1982 request includes several projects for child care centers. Would you briefly explain to the subcommittee the Department's policy on this new and controversial issue? Answer: In today's environment, the Department of Defense must provide child care services on most of its bases. 54% of our total force is married. The percentage of career personnel who are married is even higher. There are over 1.6 million dependent children of military families. The number of working spouses has increased dramatically over the last decade, and children of these families are responsible for the largest demand on child care centers. These facilities are as basic to our overall needs today as are libraries, gymnasiums, and other community facilities. We believe that, in combination with other family services, modern child care centers are a major factor in retaining quality career personnel in the Armed Services. We therefore believe that child care center construction should be an obligation of our government, just as it is for other essential community construction. Question: Again, on child care centers, if funds are appropriated for these facilities, is other additional appropriated funding necessary to operate them, or are they self-supporting? Answer: The Department of Defense authorizes limited operations and maintenance support from appropriated sources, namely a professional staff director, utilities, and building maintenance. (Reference: DoD Directive 1330.2, Funding of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Programs, and DoD Directive 1315.10, Assignment of Appropriated Funded Personnel to MWR Activities.) Patron fees and charges cover the majority of other operating expenses, although other nonappropriated funds generated as a result of military exchange operations may also be used. Question: On the subject of unaccompanied enlisted personnel housing (barracks, in other words:), what is the Defense Department's standard for these facilities? Each service seems to build to their own specifications, and so we have personnel of equal pay grades living very differently from service-to-service and base-to-base. Isn't there some sort of standard design for new construction of enlisted housing, and if not, doesn't it seem that this should be considered? Answer: The Department's criteria for unaccompanied enlisted housing is contained in the DoD Construction Criteria Manual (DoD 4270.1-M). This criteria establishes space allowances by enlisted grade and is predicated on grades E-2 through E-4 being assigned three persons to a room; E-5 thrugh E-6 two persons to a room; and E-7 through E-9 one person to a room. This criteria serves as the DoD standard except that some years ago the Air Force was granted permission to build two person rooms, not to exceed 180 net square feet per room. The following is the current DoD criteria: Grade El E2-E4 E5-E6 E7-E9 sleeping room. Room with net living area of 270 square One bathroom per Same net living area per room as for Same net living area per room as for One bathroom per sleeping room. One bathroom per sleeping room. 1Net living area is one equal share per room of the squad room. The squad room is measured to the inside face of the peripheral walls. 2Net living area in this instance is the clear area in the sleeping room allocated for an individual's bed, locker and circulation, but excludes lounges, bathrooms, and general circulation. A bathroom will normally include three fixtures; one each, water closet, a combination bathtub and shower and lavatory. Relative to standard design, there are currently five designs being utilized on a repetitive basis by the Military Departments (2-Army, 2-Navy and 1-Air Force). One of the Navy designs is being used by both Navy and the Marine Corp. We believe that this is the limit that we should standardize design. Question: Mr. Fliakas, we are about to begin consideration of the largest military construction bill I can recall. What do you see as the biggest problem in the military construction business in other words where is the greatest need and should the Subcommittee concentrate on one issue more than another? Answer: Mr. Chairman, the biggest problem we have in the military construction business is the total facility deficiency for the three military Departments, the Guard and Reserve, and Defense Agencies of $60.5 billion. While the program is the largest, we believe it is reflection of the needs of the Department of Defense. The inability to provide adequate facilities on a timely basis has many serious readiness implications. We have also not neglected needed improvements for the quality of life for military personnel and their families, nor to other national requirements such as energy conservation and pollution abatement. I believe our program is a balanced one and I would not recommend that your subcommittee concentrate on one issue more than another. CONCLUDING REMARKS Senator LAXALT. Does any of the rest of the panel have anything to suggest or offer to us? Mr. FLIAKAS. Since I am the spokesman I will say that we look forward to working with the committee. My office and the Secretary of Defense's office are the focal points for policy on construction matters. I know that of course you and the staff will be talking with the services, individual departments, with respect to their specific line items. We are at your disposal to provide any information you may need. Senator LAXALT. As I indicated, I think really if we are to do a responsible job here, we had better take these numbers and break them out, not in laborious line item detail, but break this budget down so that we can take a look from an absolute must to a must. Do you see what I mean? Mr. FLIAKAS. Yes, sir. Senator LAXALT. Let the members of the subcommittee take a look at it as we progress with these hearings. I think it should be part of the overall perspective. SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS Thank you all for your time. The subcommittee now will stand in recess until Tuesday, March 24 at 10 a.m. Testimony will be received on the Army's construction request for fiscal years 1982 and 1981 supplemental. [Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., Thursday, March 19, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, March 24.] |