« PreviousContinue »
Summary of program objectives contained in title III (Air Force)
For construction of necessary facilities in support of ballistic missiles...
gap filler sites.--For construction of SAGE centers and for other support facilities for the con
tinued development of the present SAGE system
United States. ----
bases worldwide -----
areas, including service clubs, chapels, post exchanges, recreational facilities,
ment activities, and new mission requirements. -----
4,114 barrack spaces; 492 bachelor officers' spaces; and related dining facilities... For additional facilities in support of worldwide communications systems. ----For facilities supporting the Air Training Command mission in the continental
United States --For 688 family housing units at oversea locations, 288 of which will be surplus commodity units...
name For facilities at Air Materiel Command depots in the United States.----For hospital and medical facilities, including $2,006,000 for a 50-bed hospital at
Castle Air Force Base, Calif.; $1,787,000 for a 50-bed hospital at Dow Air Force
Base, Maine; and $3,997,000 for a 225-bed hospital at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.
---------------------For land acquisition to provide for rinway extensions and overr'ins; new radar
gap filler sites; SAGE facilities, and a new hospital at Dow Air Force Base, Maine. For construction in support of other essential programs, including utilities
improvement and modernization, runway lighting systems, fire stations, and other related items.---..
19,143,000 17,500,000 17,000,000 17, 242, 000 15, 995,000 13, 380, 000 13,014,000 11, 906, 000 10, 720,000
Analysis of title III (Air Force) by category—Type of facilities to be provided
[Dollar amounts in millions]
Summary of military construction authorizations.--In order that the committee may review the status of all military construction authorization through fiscal years 1948 to date, the following summary is provided (all figures are in millions of dollars):
This tabulation illustrates that the amount of residual authorization available to the three military Departments is still being further reduced by the annual rescission of lower priority unfunded projects, as provided under section 506 of this bill. This reduction will amount to approximately $235 million for fiscal year 1960, with an additional $406 million reduction expected by the end of fiscal year 1961. The balance of residual authorization then left available will consist of relatively small amounts compared to the large balances which were on hand several years ago. This places our construction program on a much more current basis, and should permit a greater share of our annual appropriations to be applied to essential new authorization.
Relationship between the fiscal year 1961 authorization and funding programs.—In conformity with this objective of placing the construction program on a more current basis, all of the new authorization requested in this bill, with the exception of the contingency authorization contained in sections 103, 203, and 303, and a small amount of other projects, is scheduled for inclusion in the fiscal year 1961 funding programs of the three military Departments.
The small amount of other projects not scheduled for inclusion in the funding programs consists of essential, well-screened items that should definitely be accomplished in fiscal year 1961, but which cannot be immediately started due to unfinished site surveys, special design work that must be completed, or other reasons. It is nearly always possible to fund these projects later in the fiscal year, as replacements for other projects initially included in the funding programs, but upon which work cannot be started, due to unforeseen construction problems, or program changes.
Such flexibility of this sort is normal in a worldwide construction program of this scope and complexity, and the availability of authorization for these unfunded projects assures that work can continue without interruption or loss of time during the best working seasons.
Contingency auhorization.—I should like to speak briefly concerning the contingency authorization contained in sections 103, 203, and 303. This authoriaztion amounts to only about 5 percent of the total requested for the three Departments, and its availability during the past years has been most helpful on numerous occasions when certain urgent, unpredicted work became necessary, which could not have been accomplished unless this special authority had been available. Examples of such work are special operational facilities constructed at military installations in the Mediterranean area during the Lebanon crisis; similar emergency work which was accomplished in the Eastern Pacific area in support of our forces in the Formosa area ; special missile test structures for
which an immediate need became necessary; replacement of several SAC runways which failed unexpectedly during the season; and various other unforeseen projects for which an immediate requirement was mandatory.
In the present advanced state of weapons development, when new techniques, scientific breakthroughs, and other changes are occurring almost day to day, it is impossible to predict each specific, individual line-item project which will be needed for the next 12 months. For this reason, we feel that the $1712 million of this special authorization which is being sought for each of the three Departments is a very reasonable contingency item for a program which involves construction of the worldwide scope and complexity that is required to support our present Armed Forces activities throughout the United States and in foreign countries.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the unused portions of this emergency authorization expire on September 30 of each year following its enactment, thus preventing the accumulation of unused balances. In this way it serves as a true emergency contingency, available for use if needed, but automatically rescinded if it is unused. It is always our hope that we never have to use any of this special authrrization and that our planning for future requirements can be sufficiently accurate to foresee each and every line item that will be needed during the next year ahead.
All of the foregoing portion of this statement relates to the authorization in S. 3006 which is for the active forces in titles I through V. Similar details covering the authorization for the reserve forces in title VI are presented, starting on page 36 of this statement.
Construction and planning activities.-Efforts are being continued to perform our construction by means of formally advertised contracts. Except under unusual circumstances, all contracts are being awarded on a competitive basis to the lowest responsible bidder, and during fiscal year 1959, 92 percent of all work placed under contract was handled in this manner. Every effort will be made to continue our practice of advertising for bids on the open market. Reports on this important aspect of our contracting activity will continue to be made to this committee semiannually, as specified by section 505 of this bill, and by similar provisions in previous legislation. Placement of contracts by negotiation will be utilized only where such procurement is in the interest of national defense.
Continued progress has been made in the establishment of economical and uniform quality for military construction. This has been accomplished by the issuance of Department of Defense instructions which prescribe standards and criteria for most of the principal repetitive-type facilities common to the three military departments. These instructions, while establishing quality standards and space criteria, provide a measure of flexibility for the varying requirements of tho services. Very creditable economies are also being attained within all the Departments by more repetitive use of previously proven designs, which reduces engineering costs, and greatly aids in eliminating change orders. There is always room for improvement in this field, and we shall certainly continue our efforts in order that additional savings may be achieved.
Special attention has been directed toward the design of hospitals so as to attain all practicable cost reductions, yet provide an efficient and useful structure. I am confident that added economies will result from this action. In addition to this, a procedure has been established whereby careful consideration by a technically qualified staff is given to existing hospital capacity, both civil and Government, in the area of a proposed new military hospital, prior to approving such projects.
Real estate.—Maximum utilization of existing military facilities and prompt identification and declaration as excess of real property holdings for which no military requirement exists are fundamental to attaining maximum economy in providing essential installation support to the military departments for the performance of their assigned missions. Efficient utilization of existing facilities frequently obviates and invariably reduces the cost of new construction. Prompt disposal of excess property not only eliminates the cost of operating and maintaining such facilities but will, in most cases, insure the return of the same to the economy and to the tax rolls of the local governments as well as a monetary return to the Treasury.
In implementation of the foregoing principle of sound real property management, my office conducts a continuous review of all military real property holdings. The effectiveness of such review involves close liaison and coordination with the three military departments in order to assure that the essential mili
tary base structure is provided within the framework of this economical concept.
It may be that as the nature of our forces change due to the transition to greater missile application, reorientation and closing of some bases will occur. I feel confident that the Congress will support us where such changes are: justified.
Joint utilization of land and facilities as between the services, particularly in the functional areas of logistical support, as well as the consolidation of activities into fewer facilities, are two important elements of an objective utilization of military real property.
On-site property surveys, conducted on either a geographical or a functional basis, or a combination of both, are, when feasible, an important ingredient of an intelligent review and evaluation of the utilization of, and requirement for, military real properties. For example, a study of the military real property in the State of Hawaii was conducted recently under the supervision of my office, with the active cooperation of the military departments, designed to insure maximum utilization of existing landholdings and the disposal of land excess to current or future requirements. As a result of this study, including a review of actions already taken or initiated by the military departments, over 3,000 acres of land in 42 separate areas have been identified as excess to the requirements of the cognizant military departments and are in process of screening with the other military departments. Much of this excess is land of considerable value and will be returned to a local economy in which the amount of usable land is relatively limited. We will continue this study in order to assure that all land to be retained in Hawaii is definitely required to support firm long-term requirements.
In connection with this year's bill, as in the past, all requirements have been carefully screened by both the military departments and my office against existing inactive and excess installations as well as unused land and facilities at active installations. I am satisfied that authorization is requested for the fulfillment of only those requirements which could not be appropriately satisfied at existing available facilities.
The principal requirement for land in this bill is in support of the ballistic missile program. It should be noted that existing facilities have been utilized to the maximum possible extent to provide launching sites or logistical support necessary to implement this program.
The estimated cost of the land or interest therein for which authorization is requested in this bill in fulfillment of military requirements is substantially less than the total expenditures for such purposes for any fiscal year since fiscal year 1950, notwithstanding the requirements for missile sites. Also, during fiscal year 1959, an overall reduction of 1,448,000 acres of military-controlled land was recorded in the United States. This reduction was accomplished principally by the release of military ranges.
A summary of the real estate acquisitions proposed in titles I, II, and III of the bill is shown in the following tabulation :
1 Land and dollars in addition to that shown will be required for missile construction at various locations where the exact acreage and cost have not yet been established.
Military family housing.--During the calendar year 1959 our military families began to derive marked benefits from the Capehart program, which was first authorized in August 1955. In the period from April 20, 1959, to March 14, 1960, the number of units in completed projects jumped from 23,067 to 52,715. Meanwhile, the number of units in projects under construction declined from 49,616 to 33,617, partly as a result of financing difficulties.
Including presently authorized execution programs, military controlled housing assets total 346,267 units worldwide. We also benefit from an estimated
213,000 units of adequate privately owned housing, so that our combined assets total 559,267 units, as shown in the attached summary (tab A).
As the summary indicates, on June 30, 1963, there will be 880,500 married male officers, upper enlisted personnel, and eligible key civilians who are entitled to quarters. Bachelors, lower grade enlisted personnel, and personnel in certain categories of assignments have been excluded. After subtracting our assets as noted above, we have a worldwide statistical deficit of 321,233 units. A breakdown of these figures for the United States and overseas is set forth in attached tab B.
Against this deficit, our programed construction (proposed fiscal year 1961 authorization plus rehabilitation of 1141 inadequate quarters) totals 10,927 units. The proposed 1961 program is modest because we feel it necessary to proceed with increasing caution as we approach substantial satisfaction of our more pressing needs. Sizable safety factors (approximately 175,000 units) must be preserved against possible future personnel cuts and redeployments, and in anticipation of possible increases in the private housing supply in many areas. In many nonisolated areas we have deferred proposed projects until we can properly evaluate the impact of prior increments.
Additional family housing authorization requested in 8. 3006.-A summary of the family housing items in this bill is as follows:
The 653 appropriated fund units consist of 53 units for Fort Greely, Alaska ; together with 200 for the Nava) Air Station, Naha, Okinawa, and 400 for Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines, where it is impossible to build under the Capehart or Surplus Commodity programs. The 8,718 Capehart units are all in the United States, except for 100 in Puerto Rico, and the 415 surplus commodity units are divided into 137 for the Navy and Air Force in Turkey; 100 for the Navy in Spain; 70 for the Air Force in Great Britain; and 108 for the Air Force in Japan.
The Capehart program.-We have already referred to the substantial number of completed units in this program. A total of 107,284 Capehart units had been cleared for development as of March 14, 1960, in addition to the 8,718 units requested in this year's bill. For projects which have reached the contracting stage, the mortgages average $15,700 per unit and total $1,357,028,427.
Further progress under the Capehart program depends on our ability to obtain mortgage financing. On March 2, 1959, the Federal Housing Administration Commissioner increased the current interest rate from 44 percent to 442 percent, the statutory ceiling. This action enabled us to finance and place under construction the substantial balance of our fiscal year 1959 authorizations. However, the mortgage market became increasingly tight, and discounts of about six points were required on the 41 percent mortgages. In testimony before the Banking and Currency Committees last year we supported an increase in the interest ceiling to 54 percent, but unfortunately no increase was provided in the Housing Act of 1959 (Public Law 86-372).
Development of projects in the fiscal year 1960 program has been very slow, with only one placed under contract and bids accepted on only two others through March 15, 1960. This situation is due to financing difficulties, which indicates that discounts must exceed 714 points on the permanent mortgages if the balance of the fiscal year 1960 projects are to be financed. This is a matter of serious concern because it is already difficult to provide an entirely adequate house in some areas under the $16,500 mortgage limitation, and the discounts further reduced the amount available for construction purposes. For this reason we are seeking to remove the present Capehart interest ceiling of 443 percent.