STATEMENT BY SENATOR WALLACE F. BENNETT MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION BILL Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy extended by the committee in permitting me to testify in support of certain items in the military construction authorization bill for fiscal year 1964. H.R. 6500 authorizes military construction in Utah in the amount of $3,822,000. Of this amount $2,717,000 is for construction at Hill Air Force Base; $1,017,000 for construction at Dugway Proving Ground; and $88,000 for construction at Utah Army Depot. HILL AIR FORCE BASE Hill Air Force Base is one of the major installations operated by the Air Force Logistics Command. In addition to major Air Force maintenance and supply missions, this installation has complete superivsion for maintenance, overhaul, and other support functions relating to the MINUTEMAN (SM-80) missiles. There are seven items of construction for which authorization is sought during fiscal year 1964. These items are as follows: Item 1. Loading apron.-This project involves construction of a new heavyduty loading apron to facilitate the loading and airlifting of MINUTEMAN missiles assembled at Hill Air Force Base. Because of logistics problems involved, it has been found to be much easier and safer to move missiles by air than by either rail or truck. Air movement can be accomplished in a matter of hours, whereas overland operations require 4 or 6 days. Item 2. Depot quality control laboratory.-Hill Air Force Base has worldwide responsibility for repair and modification of several Air Force advance weapons systems. Consequently, an adeqaute chemical and metallurgical testing laboratory is vital to effective operation of this depot. At present, a makeshift laboratory is being operated in part of an aircraft hangar. The new facility requested will increase efficiency and lessen the hazards in carrying out testing which is required on missile components. Item 3. Maintenance dock. The construction of one new nose dock is required to facilitate maintenance and overhaul of aircraft during all weather conditions. The absence of adequate facilities has restricted the operational mission in the testing and training of the North American air defense electronic countermeasure systems. Item 4. Missile service shop (alteration).-Hill Air Force Base has the responsibility for the recycling of all MINUTEMAN missiles. Since rocket engine components deteriorate with age, it is necessary to periodically return missiles to Hill Air Force Base for a complete inspection and overhaul. Alteration and improvement of the existing shop is essential to fulfillment of this important mission. Item 5. Storage igloo (alteration).-The alteration requested in this item provides for modification of existing igloos to provide storage for MINUTEMAN rocket motors before, during, and after the periodic motor maintenance cycle. Item 6. Logistical facilities depot (alteration).—The modifications requested under this project will provide adequate space and working area for 1,700 personnel now performing services in connection with the MINUTEMAN, BOMARC, and other missile missions assigned to Hill Air Force Base. These personnel are now working in World War II barracks, converted warehouses and other facilities which were built more than 20 years ago. Ventilation, heating, and lighting are totally inadequate. It is estimated that a 25 percent increase in effectiveness will pay for the cost of this project, and by altering existing facilities a savings of $500,000 will result over the cost of new construction. Item 7. Officers quarters (alteration).—Most of the quarters to house officers at Hill Air Force Base were constructed in the early 1940's. Existing facilities are substandard and inadequate. Improvements requested will provide 119 adequate officers spaces against a requirement of 155 spaces. DUGWAY PROVING GROUND The Dugway Proving Ground is a part of the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command. It is located 86 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The base has the mission of performing field and laboratory tests in the chemical, biological, and radiological areas. There are two items for which construction authorization is requested in fiscal year 1964. Item 1. Toxic test support area improvements.-Most of the facilities at Dugway Proving Ground were constructed during the early years of World War II. Due to the age and the inadequacy of present facilities, it is essential that alterations and modifications be made to existing buildings if the mission of this depot is to be accomplished. It is essential that a new agent transfer building, a new shop facility and three reinforced igloos be constructed. The new buildings are required to support increased field and engineering test missions assigned to Dugway Proving Ground. The igloos will provide storage for munitions which are currently stored outside, thereby creating a hazard to personnel during testing operations. Item 2. Fire and rescue station.-Authorization is requested for construction of a new 2-company, 3-stall fire station with a 28-man dormitory to be located adjacent to the airfield. At present the only fire station is located some threefourths of a mile from the airfield, and thus provides inadequate protection for aircraft during loading, takeoff, and landings. The existing fire station is obsolete and will be demolished when the new fire station is completed. UTAH ARMY DEPOT The Utah Army Depot, located at Ogden, Utah, is part of the U.S. Army Supply and Maintenance Command. It is the major Army storage and supply depot for the 13 Western States, the Pacific, and the Far East. Only one small item of construction is requested for authorization during the current fiscal year. It involves a proposed authorization of $88,000 for additional transformer capacity at the main electrical substation to eliminate overloading of the existing transformer. The present transformer, which was installed in 1941, has a capacity of 3,000 kilovolt-amperes. During each of the past 3 years peakloads on the transformer have been exceeded, thus causing overloading and the danger of transformer breakdown. The depot is requesting installation of an additional 1,500 kilovolt-ampere transformer, thus providing a peak capacity of 4,500 kilovolt-amperes. CONCLUSION Mr. Chairman, authority for construction of these facilities at Hill Air Force Base, Dugway Proving Ground, and Utah Army Depot is essential if missions of these installations are to be properly accomplished. All of these items have been requested and approved by the Defense Department and the Bureau of the Budget. Likewise, the House Armed Services Committee approved these projects in reporting H.R. 6500. I sincerely hope that the Senate Armed Services Committee will review these items and provide the authorization for construction which has been requested. Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL, WASHINGTON, April 3, 1963. DEAR DICK: Thank you for your letter of March 26, 1963, regarding my support for the provision of the military construction bill, S. 1101, authorizing the construction of additional trailer court spaces. Your offer to bring my views to the attention of members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services at an appropriate time and to include in the record of my letter of March 25, 1963, and the resolution of the executive committee of the Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association is greatly appreciated. I enclose a resolution adopted on March 28, 1963, by the board of directors of the Trailer Coach Association, and would appreciate your including it in the record together with the documents previously sent to you. With warm personal regards, I am, Sincerely yours, SCOTT W. LUCAS. RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS, TRAILER COACH ASSOCIATION Whereas an increasing number of military families are desirous of providing their own housing facilities through purchase of mobile homes; and Whereas Trailer Coach Association firmly believes that the wishes of such families in the selection of housing best suited to their individual needs is de23-901-63-38 serving of consideration by the Armed Services Committee of Congress: Therefore be it Resolved, That the board of directors of the Trailer Coach Association supports the request of the armed services for authority to construct additional mobile home parking facilities on military bases. WASHINGTON, D.C., March 25, 1963. Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: As Washington counsel for the Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association and the Trailer Coach Association, I am, of course, very interested in your S. 1101, authorizing certain construction at military installations. It is my understanding that the Defense Department this year is requesting authority to build additional trailer court spaces for military personnel. While I realize that hearings have not yet been scheduled on your bill, I would like to express the strong support of the mobile home industry for the requested authorization. This request reflects a gratifying recognition by the Defense Department of the fact that more and more military families are finding mobile homes a most satisfactory solution to their housing problems. In my opinion, the request also is in harmony with the interest expressed by your committee and the House Armed Services Committee in mobile home facilities for military personnel in connection with the last year's Military Construction Authorization Act. In support of the current Defense Department request for the construction of additional trailer court facilities I enclose a resolution adopted by the executive committee of the Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association on this subject. When the matter comes up before your committee, I would very much appreciate your having this letter and the enclosed resolution brought to the attention of committee members and, if you deem it appropriate, incorporated in the printed record of the hearings. They will, I believe, adequately express the views of the Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association and the Trailer Coach Association. Needless to say, if you should desire testimony at the hearings, I would be very pleased to appear before your committee. I trust that your committee will find it possible to approve the Defense Department request. For your information, Senator, I am sending a similar letter to Chairman Vinson of the House Armed Services Committee. I understand that his committee is holding hearings this week on current requests for military construction authorizations. With every good wish and with warm personal regards, I am, RESOLUTION SCOTT W. LUCAS. Be it resolved, That the executive committee of the Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association endorses the request from the armed services for authority to construct additional mobile home parking facilities on military bases. The number of military families who desire to provide their own housing facilities through the ownership of mobile homes is increasing and the Moble Homes Manufacturers Association earnestly believes they are entitled to consideration by the Armed Services Committee. VINCENT J. NIESEN, President, Mobile Homes Manufacturers Association. STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM H. HARRISON, JR., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we welcome this opportunity to present the views of the National Guard Association of the United States on H.R. 6500, a bill to authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes. Title VII of H.R. 6500 provides the authorizations for construction of National Guard facilities, both Army and Air, for fiscal 1964. The enactment of Public Law 783 of the 81st Congress established the general principle of mutual Federal-State participation in the construction of armories for the Army National Guard. The ratio of such participation was set in that act as 75 percent Federal and 25 percent State after the acquisition of the land by the State. Over the years, certain other administrative restrictions have been imposed the results of which have acted to increase the participation by the States to almost an equal ratio with that provided by the Federal Government. Under the aforementioned act and up through fiscal year 1962, a total of 1,338 armory projects at a combined total Federal-State cost of $237.9 million, $159.9 million has been supplied by the Federal Government, the remainder by the States in addition to the land acquisition cost. Moreover, $28.2 million of Federal funds has been obligated in support of nonarmory projects. The average annual obligation under the authorized construction program has been $18.7 million ranging from a low of $8.3 million in fiscal year 1953 to a high of $29 million in fiscal year 1957. During the current fiscal year an obligational target of $17 million has been established which figure is compatible with actual obligation performance during the last several fiscal years. Strangely, the obligation target for fiscal year 1964 has been established at only $7 million-an extremely low figure in relation to demonstrated capabilities and facilities requirements. Reports from the States indicate the availability of at least $15 million in State funds for the construction program in fiscal year 1964. On the basis of the 75- to-25-percent Federal-State ratio, Federal funds in the amount of $45 million would be necessary to match available State appropriated funds. It is evident that the military construction program proposed in the President's budget falls far short of providing a reasonable annual increment of obligational authority. It is also obvious that the Federal Government does not desire to take advantage of available State matching funds. This in itself is peculiarly not understandable when the administration publicly announces its fears for the economy of the Nation during the coming fiscal year. Because of the current reorganization and realinement of the Army National Guard under Department of Defense directives, a revised precise total of the remaining armory and nonarmory construction requirements cannot at the moment be ascertained. Nonetheless, based upon reported requirements and information presently available, it is reasonably estimated that remaining require ments to provide adequate facilities for the support of the Army National Guard are in excess of $150 million. At the proposed fiscal year 1964 rate of construction, the completion of the program is in excess of 25 years away. Meanwhile, Federal equipment and material furnished to the Army National Guard and necessary to its readiness and mission continues to deteriorate for lack of adequate cover and storage. An Army National Guard construction program in the magnitude of $15 to $20 million is considered reasonable and desirable. Such a program bears a realistic relation to the remaining construction requirement, is within the demonstrated capability of the States to provide matching funds and necessary sites, and is commensurate with the annual average level of obligations. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, we urge this committee to increase the figure on line 3 of page 7 of H.R. 6500 from "$3.6" million to "$20.0" million. Lest this committee, labor under the impression that we are never quite satisfied with the support of the National Guard as proposed in the Pentagon, I should like to state that the authorization for Air National Guard facilities set forth in this bill appears to be adequate during fiscal year 1964, to provide for the essential construction associated with the approved Air National Guard program. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we urge your support of the Air National Guard construction authorization in H.R. 6500 as proposed by the Department. Thank you. U.S. SENATE, Hon. RICHARD RUSSELL, Chairman, Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate. OFFICE OF THE MAJORITY LEADER, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am enclosing a copy of a letter I have received from a serviceman concerning the housing at Malmstrom Air Force Base which I would appreciate your making a part of your record. With best personal wishes, I am MIKE MANSFIELD. AUGUST 27, 1963. Hon. Senator MIKE MANSFIELD, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: Thank you very much for the consideration and efforts that you have put forth in trying to help me and those like me with the same housing problems. I'm a Montanan but most of my friends are from other States. It is gratifying, indeed, to hear the complimentary remarks paid to you from men and their wives from all over the country. I read the letter from Colonel Fahringer, Congressional Inquiry Division, who queried the base commander here at Malmstrom Air Force Base at your request. I must have been in error if the housing hasn't been downgraded to substandard by law. This makes the whole situation that much worse because if these quarters do meet the adequate standards, it doesn't say too much for our standards. To me the word standard is a basis of comparison and it has always been the military objective to standardize and that is to make uniform. Believe me, Senator, the housing here at Malmstrom Air Force Base is far from uniform for people in my same status. In order to give you specifics I'll tell you of my case when I accepted base housing. My wife and I met with the housing inspectors and the outgoing occupants in the house at the time the house was considered to be in readiness for new occupants. The walls needed painting, the floor needed resanding and varnishing, the old gas stove barely worked and the old refrigerator was scratched and tarnished and had only the tiny compartment for ice trays with no freezer space at all in it. The first thing that my wife and I said was that we would not accept the quarters in this condition. The housing inspector said that if we did not we would have to go on a 60-day waiting list for another chance at base housing. We were very anxious to move into quarters since we had been living out of a suitcase for nearly a month and we said that we ́would accept if they would paint the quarters. The housing inspector said that he considered the paint job adequate and besides that the housing had been downgraded to substandard and the rent would be lowered the 1st of July so they could not afford to paint the substandard housing. I told the inspector that I would do the painting if they would give me the paint. He informed me that they would not. I could see that I had to accept the quarters as they were if I wanted housing at all. I also had to sign a letter stating that I would not request other housing at a later date. This I did and I'm sorry for it now. My wife and I decided to make the best of it considering the fact that the rent was to be lowered the 1st of July. We spent $50 on paint and repainted all the rooms ourselves. We wanted a decent stove so we put a new one that we bought in place of the old housing stove. We put our own automatic washer in and when we have saved enough money, we'll put a refrigerator with a freezing compartment in. The heating is very poor inasmuch as the upstairs rooms become a hotbox in order to obtain the required heat downstairs. Of course the Capehart housing is everything that the Wherry is not. I'm not in a position to disagree with the base commander so all I can say is that I'd like to see a team of inspectors physically inspect all the housing here at Malmstrom Air Force Base and have them give their unbiased recommendations. |