Army Forces Command in January for preliminary review. This review is in process and it is anticipated that the D/EIS will be filed in April and the final EIS will be filed in August 1976.

Senator LEAHY. What disposition will be made of the existing general's quarters at Fort Polk?

General WRAY. These units are about 35 years old, wood frame construction and were not originally constructed as general officers quarters. They will be redesignated as senior officer quarters for the remainder of their useful life.

Senator LEAHY. Show that replacement of the general's quarters at Fort Polk is cost effective.

General WRAY. The new general's quarters at Fort Polk are being requested not because the new quarters will be more cost effective but because the existing quarters are not suitable for continued long term use as general's quarters and their replacement now is considered to be timely.

Considering the past status and utilization of Fort Polk, the use of the two existing units as general's quarters has been a satisfactory expedient. However, neither building provides the entertainment space, character, nor amenities required to be fully suitable as general's quarters.

One of these existing units was originally constructed in the thirties as a log cabin. It was acquired with the land when Fort Polk was obtained from the Department of Agriculture in 1941. It has had several additions since that time; however, its basic character is less than a modern efficient house. The other set of quarters was built as a temporary structure during World War II. It also has had several additions since that time. Neither unit has a satisfactory entertainment area. The interior layouts and the mechanical systems are less than desirable. Neither structure can be remodeled economically to correct these deficiencies.

Due to the severe shortage of family housing at Fort Polk, we expect to continue to use the existing general's quarters as family housing until the shortage has been relieved or they become uneconomical to maintain and operate.

Senator LEAHY. Why are you replacing steel casement windows at Fort Bragg?

General WRAY. The steel casement windows at Fort Bragg have become so badly warped that they cannot be closed properly. Also due to their age replacement parts for the cranking and latching machanisms are no longer manufactured. The resulting excessive air infiltration results in occupant discomfort and a constant waste of energy. Replacement is considered to be the most effective and economical solution.

Senator LEAHY. Expand on the Fort Hood modernization. When were the units originally built? Are you increasing the total square footage?

General WRAY. These Fort Hood units are small Wherry units which were originally constructed in 1950 and 1951. There are a number of different unit types with varying deficiencies. We are increasing the floor area by an average of about 100 square feet each to provide utility and storage space, additional bathrooms, and more functional kitchens.

Senator LEAHY. Expand on the Fort Belvoir project. When were the units originally built? Are you increasing the total square footage?

།

General WRAY. The units at Fort Belvoir were originally constructed in 1950, 1956, and 1959. No additional square footage is being provided.

Senator LEAHY. Expand on the Fort Lewis project. When were the units originally built. Why are you providing patios? How much will patios and privacy screens cost?

General WRAY. The Fort Lewis units were originally constructed in 1956 and 1957. There are existing patios which are being partially destroyed by a new building addition to provide a utility room and one-half bath. Therefore, partial replacement of patios are being constructed. The cost of the patio additions and privacy screens is approximately $200 per unit.

Senator LEAHY. How do you handle the Government's obligation on family housing debt at bases that are closed?

General WRAY. We continue to pay the mortgage until such time as the property is sold by the GSA on our behalf. At that time, to provide clear title to the buyer, it is necessary to either pay off the mortgage or to sever the mortgage and the housing with the mortgageholders thereafter relying on the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government as surety for his money in lieu of the mortgage.

Senator LEAHY. It appears that you are maintaining a number of units constructed in support of the Nike program. Do you still need these units?

General WRAY. A large number of the units constructed for the Nike program are in localities where they can be used advantageously by the services to satisfy existing housing needs. When there is no further requirement for these units, they are declared excess and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

Senator LEAHY. What will be your average lease cost-domestic, Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, and foreign-for fiscal year 1977? Show how this estimate is derived.

General WRAY. The estimated average lease cost for domestic leasing in fiscal year 1977 is about $265.

The average unit cost of Army domestic-leased housing in fiscal year 1975 was $230 per month consisting of $184 rent and $46 utilities costs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that residential rents will increase at the rate of 5.1 percent through fiscal year 1977. We estimate that the cost of utilities will increase by 20 percent annually, and due to statutory average restraint it will be necessary to limit rental increases on Army leased housing in fiscal year 1976 to not more than 3.1 percent average in fiscal year 1976. This brings the average unit cost in fiscal year 1976 to $189.70 rent and $55.20 for utilities making the average cost $244.90 per month. Applying the 5.1-percent rental increase and 20-percent increase in utilities cost brings the fiscal year 1977 average cost to $199.40 for rent and $66.24 for utilities making the average unit cost $265.24 per month. The Army has not programed leased family housing for Hawaii, Alaska, or Guam in fiscal year 1977. The average unit cost for Army foreign-leased housing in fiscal year 1975 was $326 per month including rent, utilities and services. Based on a 10-percent annual increase in leasing costs estimated by Headquarters, U.S. Army Europe, the average cost for fiscal year 1977 will be $395 per month.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much, General.

70-327 0-76-28

I am going to have a number of other questions which we will submit for the record, unless Senator Cannon has anything he wants to ask at this time.

PREPARED QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR THURMOND

Senator LEAHY. I have some questions here from Senator Thurmond. We will ask that you answer the questions for the record.

General WRAY. Yes, sir.

[Questions submitted by Senator Thurmond. Answers supplied by Department of Defense.]

Question. Generai Wray, how much was the original Army military construetion request reduced during the DOD and Office of Management and Budget process.

Answer. Sir, the amount is $407,714,000.

Question. General Wray, what do you see as the greatest long range military construction requirement for the Army?

Answer. The Army's primary emphasis for the next few years will continue to be troop oriented facilities; troop housing and medical and community facilities. Question. General Wray, how does the Army position relative to construction of Reserve components facilities vary this year compared to the past years? Answer. There is no change in the Army's position concerning the importance of the Reserve components construction programs. Although the Fiscal year 77 request is considered austere, the $94 million requested is a well balanced program which will provide 120 new or modernized facilities for home stationing and training of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. I might point out that the FY 77 Reserve Component construction request reflect a 277 percent growth since FY 72 versus a 49 percent growth for the regular construction program.

Question. Why are you asking for fewer Reserve component projects this year?

Answer. The FY 77 request is $29 million less than provided in FY 76. Thus 39 fewer facilities will be constructed.

Question. Why has the Army been rather slow in its nuclear weapons security program?

Answer. We do not believe that we could have proceeded any more rapidly because of the large number of field surveys and decisions on design standards required. We have completed our surveys and seven months before the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Security Policy approved the criteria the Army unilaterally began the engineering effort required for the improve ments based on our recommended criteria.

The largest number of the Army sites are in NATO Europe where we must consult with the host nations and obtain NATO approval of criteria to obtain maximum recoupment of US funds. The security upgrade criteria was submitted to the JCS on 29 May 1975 and was approved by JCS and OSD on 17 March 1976. During this period the Army proceeded to award design contracts so that we could utilize the MCA construction funds that were in the FY 76 MCA program. Design is now complete on five sites and we plan to begin to award construction contracts in the near future. Of course we are keeping careful watch on all plans for site consolidation to insure that our construction plans take potential consolidations into consideration. The Army is determined to press this program to completion as we fully realize the seriousness of the problem and the urgent need to increase security. I do not minimize the difficulties that we could still face in getting the approval of our plans from our Allies and the host nation that are required to obtain the maximum recoupment but we are giving this high priority attention.

At those sites which are not located in NATO Europe design is underway and no problems are anticipated which would delay contract awards.

Question. General Wray, what impact has the commissary issue had on military construction commissary facilities?

Answer. The provision of Public Law 93-552, enacted 27 December 1974, which permits the Army to increase the commissary surcharge rate for construction purposes, will enable the Army to construct from two to three new commissary stores per year within the United States. However, legal counsel has interpreted the law as prohibiting the use of the increased surcharge funds for commissary construction outside of the United States. The Army agrees that appropriated funds should be the primary source for constructing and improving oversea commissaries. Military personnel in oversea areas are there by direction and have no acceptable alternate commercial facilities available in most instances due to extremely high prices, sanitary conditions and lack of American type merchandise. However, there have been no Army commissary projects included in the fiscal years 1976 and 1977 Military Construction Programs.

Question. General Wray, again this year I would like to express concern reference the slow pace of construction of Army dental clinics. It has been established in the record that at a number of Forts the current facilities are in very poor repair, some still occupying 30-year old wooden structures characterized by inadequate lighting and plumbing. General, how many clinics were requested by the medical people for the Army's FY 1977 program?

Answer. A total of eight dental clinics and one regional dental activity were requested by the Medical Department.

Question. How many did the Army request of the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget?

Answer. The request from the Army to the Department of Defense, eight clinics and one regional dental activity, was considered jointly by both Defense and the Office of Management and Budget.

Question. You indicate that all but two of the eight requested were eliminated. On what basis were those two selected?

Answer. The Army's Health Services Command recommends construction requirements to the Office of the Surgeon General where they are incorporated into the world-wide requirements. These are then placed in priority according to the needs of the Army. The two projects remaining in the program were the two highest in priority of the original eight. Fort Stewart has a requirement for 68 dental treatment rooms (DTR), with none in existing permanent construction. Fort Hood has a requirement for 190 DTR's with 32 existing adequate and 56 under construction.

Question. Provide for the record the location and cost of those dental facilities deleted during the budget process. Could you also provide a priority list for these facilities?

[The information follows:]

The following dental facilities were deleted during the budget process. They are listed in priority order.

1. Fort Carlson, Colo. (28 DTR's)

2. Fort Polk, La. (28 DTR's).

3. Fort Campbell, Ky. (28 DTR's).

4. Fort Gordon, Ga., Regional Dental Activity.

5. Fort Lewis, Wash. (28 DTR's) 6. Fort Sill, Okla. (28 DTR's) –

$1,922, 000

1,787, 000

1,705, 000

2, 224, 000 1,900,000 1, 534, 000

Question. General Wray, I am sure you are aware of the low retention rate of Army dentists. Undoubtedly the poor conditions under which many are working impact unfavorably on the retention rate. It seems to me it would be well to go forward with these dental clinics this year, as I am sure the construction would be cheaper if bid upon in FY 1977 versus FY 1978 or later. Also, the Army dental retention rate must be reversed or additional financial problems will result. Would you care to comment on this?

Answer. The full Army construction program for fiscal year 1977 is very austere, to include the medical/dental facility class. However, the Army has placed great emphasis on dental construction recently, with seven clinics in fiscal year 1975, eight in fiscal year 1976, and 12 presently projected for fiscal year 1978. While there is no doubt construction in 1977 would be less costly than 1978, construction of additional dental clinics from fiscal year 1977 funding would have required deferral of an equivalent amount of construction in some other facility class, due to the constraints on the total program. Thus, the

higher construction costs anticipated in fiscal year 1978 would be simply displaced from one facility class to another.

Question. General Wray, Fort Jackson has requested funds for a general education development (GED) facility and a non-combustible laundry facility with a utility building. Please provide for the record why these projects were not brought forward and included in the military construction budget request. [The information follows:]

These two projects are considered to be worthwhile and justifiable projects. however, the priority of these projects was low enough that only the laundry project was submitted to OSD/OMB. Due to overall MCA reductions during the OSD/OMB review process, the laundry project was also deferred.

Question. Of those projects, was not the laundry facility the number one priority project?

Answer. The laundry project was considered by the Department of the Army to be the highest priority project of those projects submitted by TRADOC for Fort Jackson.

Question. It is my understanding the present laundry facility is housed in World War II buildings. Is that correct?

Answer. That is correct.

Question. Is it not true that maintenance costs are very high on the present facility?

Answer. Normal operational and maintenance costs for World War II buildings are considerably higher than for modern structures designed and constructed considering life cycle cost.

Question. General, what is the situation on the request at Fort Jackson for a prisoner confinement facility? Was it requested this year? And, if so, why was it knocked out?

Answer. The TRADOC FY 77 MCA request included a facility at Fort Jackson for a 75-man confinement facility. This project was dropped by the Department of the Army as the recent year prisoner load had dropped to 20 to 30 and therefore a 75-man project could not be supported.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much, General.

I will have a number of other questions which we will submit for the record.

General WRAY. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. I would like to place into the record correspondence from Senator Javits and Congressman McEwen in behalf of Fort Drum, N.Y.

Hon. JOHN C. STENNIS
U.S. Senate,

Room 205, Russell Building, Washington, D.C.

U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., March 11, 1976.

DEAR JOHN: I am writing to seek your support in obtaining funding for two projects that are much needed in Fort Drum, New York where approximately 80,0000 reserve and active troops conduct annual and winter training respectively. Specifically involved are a new medical facility and rehabilitated quarters for one battalion for a combined cost of $6.3 million.

The 35 year old medical facility at Fort Drum was only partially refitted after a fire there in 1972. The present facility lacks surgery capacity, has only a portable x-ray machine in a small physical examination room, and has an emergency room that can accommodate only two patients. The equipment and accommodations are generally outdated and deteriorating. In my judgment, such a facility is clearly inadequate for a military population which runs as high as 10.000. Much of the basic quarters at Fort Drum are similarly outdated and substandard latrines, lighting and heating are all obsolete and some cases present a health or safety hazard. A rehabilitated set of buildings for one battalion would cost $3.03 million.

These items were considered by the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee which acted favorably on the $3.3 million medical facility. I very much hope that the Senate Committee