MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION, FISCAL YEAR 1977 TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1976 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ARMY AND NAVY Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m., in room 212, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Stuart Symington (chairman), presiding. Present: Senators Symington, Cannon, and Leahy. Also present: James C. Smith, professional staff member; David Raymond, assistant to Senator Symington; Frank Krebs, assistant to Senator Cannon; Will Ball, assistant to Senator Tower; and Jeanie Killgore, clerical assistant. Senator Leahy (presiding). Good morning, gentlemen. I am Patrick Leahy, the junior Senator from Vermont. Senator Symington had several committee meetings this morning, and he is at one that he has not yet been able to leave. He will be joining us later on. This morning we are going to hear from the Army regarding title I and the Navy regarding title II of the fiscal year 1977 Military Construction Authorization Bill. In addition, we have several Members of Congress who have asked to testify regarding specific projects and I propose to accommodate them as soon as they arrive. Most of them are supposed to be at other hearings, too, so I may have to interrupt witnesses at any time, or Senator Symington may have to. As has been our procedure in the past, I invite the witnesses to insert their full statement for the record and summarize the key points for the subcommittee. The printed record will show your complete justification for each project and I expect to have questions, from myself, from Senator Symington, and from the others, to be answered for the record. In addition, we have letters concerning specific projects from various Members of Congress, and they are also going to be made a part of the record. Senator McIntyre, who is presently chairing the research and development subcommittee, one of the other subcommittees I am supposed to be attending has a statement. I know that the R. & D. subcommittee will get along well whether or not I am there, but it cannot if Senator McIntyre is not there. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. MCINTYRE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Senator MCINTYRE. My statement will be relatively brief, and I will get back to my job over in R. & D. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear here this morning to give my wholehearted support to the $12,789,000 proposed as a forward step in the modernization of the Portsmouth Shipyard. The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is now a proven facility. After nearly 10 years of uncertainty, Mr. Chairman, as to whether it would remain open or closed, the shipyard has been firmly established as a needed and functioning defense installation. In the 14 or 15 years that I have been here, I have been up and down the tree with the shipyard and its future. I think it was in 1964 that it was phased out, and then, subsequently, about 1970, it was put back into the defense picture. During that time, those 6 years, the Portsmouth Shipyard was omitted and was not allowed to have any money to modernize while the modernization program was going on. Now, the Navy has put the Portsmouth Shipyard back into the modernization program. An anticipated $60 million will be spent during the next 3 to 4 years to make this the first class shipyard that it should be. It employs, Mr. Chairman, about 6,000 people in the New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts corridor, and therefore it is the single most important employer and industry in my State of New Hampshire. So, I am delighted that the Navy is now taking cognizance of it and is going to go full steam ahead. I want to say, too, the Chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, Senator Symington, has always been most understanding under years that have been very difficult for us. Last year, with the Navy's help, we were able to add on. We had a crane system that had been shipped up from Boston but was only able to move a few feet. We got the necessary money last year to put it on a truck where it could be moved across and around the yard and become a useful adjunct to the yard. I do want to say, Mr. Chairman, for the record while I am here, that the housing at the shipyard is deplorable. At present, when the subs are brought in the shipyard for overhaul and conversion, the average time in Portsmouth is about 18 months, a year and a half, that that ship is there being converted or given a substantial renovation. Bachelor members of the crew can find fairly adequate quarters. But married members of the crew have a very difficult problem. They face three choices: Leave their families at home for more than a year; try to rent homes in the area where they are often called upon to pay ridiculously high rents because the Portsmouth area is a very strong vacation area; or obtain housing in Admiralty Village which was built during World War II and is a horror today. It is a shame to put men in our fleet into such conditions. Those 150 small family units were built as temporary. I am sure you realize, Mr. Chairman, how these temporary things tend to hang around. The effect on the morale of these highly trained and skilled personnel is obvious. I think this is wrong, and as you know, I have urged action. I have come here before to urge action on the housing at the shipyard. I believe Admiralty Village should be replaced. In studying the matter, I found that the shipyard has a 16-acre plot all ready, with no zoning problems, no difficulties as far as sewers and all those other facilities that are needed, sitting right there on Seavey Island. But time and time again we get turned down while they build all of these new facilities in other areas of the country. The Northeast area, Mr. Chairman, has received very little housing assistance in recent years. Large numbers of housing units have been built all over the rest of the country. I realize the Navy is now restricted in its plans for building new housing by the new concept; but I want to call this to your attention, Mr. Chairman. I know you are a fair and decent guy who wants to do a good job here. I want to call your attention to this fair market rental, which as I understand it, provides that the Navy will make a study of the cost of renting homes in a civilian community, and the military personnel will then be provided sufficient allowances to compete for that housing. This concept may work well in areas where there is plenty of housing and where prices are not pushed out of line by the competition of vacationers. Housing in the civilian market is in short supply in Portsmouth, N.H., and this is an area where house rentals are high because it is close to one of the finest sea coasts in New England. So, I want to urge this subcommittee to study this fair market rental concept when it considers the subject of military housing. There may be a plus value to this concept in some places, but this Senator questions its merits in the Portsmouth Shipyard. I want to assure this subcommittee that I am going to continue to investigate whether it is not possible for some desperately needed new housing units to be built at the shipyard. Again, I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to speak, and thank you, General, for allowing me to interrupt your testimony, so that I can try to be in two places at once. Thank you all very much. Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Senator. Our first witness is Major General Wray, the Assistant Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army is seeking new authorization of $616,500,000. General Wray, you may proceed. [The preparted statement of Maj. Gen. William R. Wray follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM R. WRAY Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Major General William R. Wray, Assistant Chief of Engineers, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. I am pleased to appear before this Committee to present the Department of the Army's portion of the annual Military Construction Authorization request. Our request for fiscal year 1977 includes $616,500,000 in new authorization. Of the total request, about 73 percent, or $451,839,000, is for construction within the United States. About 14 percent, or $84,661,000, is for construction outside the United States, primarily in Europe and Korea, and the remaining 13 percent, or $80,000,000, is for NATO infrastructure. This is a very austere program. The amount is some $190 million less than the total fiscal year 1976 authorization approved by Congress and will provide only for our most pressing and immediate needs. Our military construction program continues emphasis on facilities of direct benefit to the soldier, as well as on energy conservation, pollution abatement and nuclear weapons security. About 40 percent of our request for construction. excluding NATO, is for soldier oriented projects such as bachelor housing and dining accommodations, medical and dental facilities and community support facilities. This is down from 60 percent in fiscal year 1976 and results primarily from the added emphasis this year on energy conservation, pollution abatement and security of nuclear weapons. These three areas alone account of 36 percent of our request and include $51,571,000 for energy conservation projects $89061,000 for pollution abatement projects and $51,968,000 for nuclear weapons security. I will discuss them in more detail in a few moments. In this year's program we are also continuing the efforts begun in our fiscal year 1975 budget to provide facilities that will directly support the stationing of a 16 Division Army. Last year, $141,596,000 was authorized for projects at Forts Ord, Polk and Stewart, the Army's new division posts, and this year we are requesting $104,058,000. Construction requirements for the new division stations during the four years following fiscal year 1977 are estimated to cost about $350 million. This year's request includes no projects associated with one station training. Future year construction requirements to support this concept will be reevaluated following completion of the special studies requested by Congress during hearings on the fiscal year 1976 request. As required by Public Law 94-106, we have included in our request this year a total of $24,500,000 for ammunition facilities or government-owned, contractoroperated Army Ammunition Plants. This amounts to 5 percent of our request for major construction. Before discussing highlights of the various construction categories I would like to call your attention to the following two tables which summarize the program. Table I shows the distribution of the authorization request among major commands in the United States and overseas. Table I-Proposed fiscal year 1977 military construction, Army program Command Inside the United States: U.S. Army Forces Command__ U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command_ U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command Cost $288, 616, 000 45, 264, 000 1,987,000 84, 157, 000 24, 500,000 2,857,000 1, 352, 000 531, 000 2,575,000 451, 839,000 13, 669,000 124,000 4,480,000 16,995, 000 80, 000, 000 49, 393, 000 164, 661, 000 616, 500,000 1 Formerly the U.S. Army Materiel Command. Table II shows the construction categories in which the funds are requested and the percentage of the construction dollars in each category. |