Are we going to take the recommendation of the Air Force as to where the F-4C can be most effectively and efficiently serviced, or are we going to allow the House Appropriations Committee to substitute its judgment? The total amount involved, as I indicated, is $2,002,000. All of it is directly. or indirectly, related to an adjustment of the present mission of the Hill Air Force Base to include the maintenance of certain components of the F-4C. As I understand it, a certain amount of new construction work will be necessary wherever this expanded mission is established. The Air Force has determined. after full study, that it would be more practical and reasonable to do this work at Hill, and to expand the Hill mission to the extent necessary. Maintenance of other components will be handled at other bases-also determined by the Air Force. Our only question is: Where can the F-4C be most effectively and efficiently serviced? Investigations conducted by the Air Force indicate that the Hill base is that location, and that no other location is as satisfactory, or even comparatively as satisfactory. It seems to me there should be no argument in this case. We should do what will most effectively strengthen our national defense-what will give us our strongest defense posture. I realize that the chairman of this subcommittee will also be in the chair when the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Authorization considers this same case. I regret having to ask for time to argue the case for Hill before him twice but I feel very strongly that the facilities in question should be constructed as requested by the Air Force. I sincerely urge the subcommittee to uphold the decision of the House Committee on Armed Services and authorize the expenditures of the amount re quested by the Department of the Air Force for construction at the Hill Air Force Base. If the funds are authorized by this subcommittee, and by the full Senate Armed Services Committee, it should make the work of the Appropriations Subcommittee easier in making a determination on this. Thank you. Senator STENNIS. Senator, I think it is very wise on your part to come in today. You have made fine points in your statement. I notice you are always alert as to the needs of these military installations that you are familiar with. Naturally, Hill being in your State, you are more familiar with their work. Senator Moss. I am very familiar with it. We ap Senator STENNIS. Than you otherwise would be. You have ap peared before our committee before to present statements. preciate your coming back. You will submit an additional statement, you say, in detail? Senator STENNIS. All right, Mr. Reporter, Senator Moss will be permitted to file an additional statement later. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK E. Moss, DEMOCRAT, OF UTAH HILL AIR FORCE BASE Hill Air Force Base, located 7 miles south of Ogden, Utah, is the site of the Ogden Air Materiel Area. Hill AFB provides depot overhaul support for the MINUTEMAN missile, the BORMAC B missile, fighter aircraft, and numerous aircraft accessories. Tenant missions on the base include Air Force Reserve units, a heavy air transport squadron, and an Air Defense Command System evaluation squadron. The fiscal year 1965 military construction program contains a request for $2,323,000 for five items, four of which relate, either directly or indirectly, to the depot support of the F-RF4C aircraft. The base now maintains F-101 aircraft. This F-101 overhaul workload will be substantially reduced while the F-RF4C overhaul will reach its peak in fiscal year 1967. The first item requested is for two maintenance engine runup hangars that will provide noise suppression facilities for testing F-RF4C and F-101 engines while on the aircraft. Currently these operational ground tests are performed on the apron and the high sound pressure level has caused serious hearing problems among personnel who work in the area. The second item for alteration to a jet engine test cell will provide a facility for testing F-RF4C engines after repair and inspection prior to installation on the aircraft. No existing facilities are capable of accommodating and testing this engine. The third item for alteration of a communication shop is needed to provide environmentally controlled space in which to repair and calibrate the electronic components of the fire control system used in the F-RF4C aircraft. No suitable space exists for maintaining this sophisticated system. The fourth item requested is for alterations to four existing warehouses to provide suitable administrative space for personnel responsible for the worldwide mangement of procurement, maintenance, and supply of materiel in support of the missile and aircraft programs assigned to this base. More than half of the deskworkers are located in unconverted warehouse space entirely unsuitable for administrative use. The last item requested is for replacement of a gymnasium to provide adequate facilities for physical conditioning and indoor intramural sports program. The existing gym is deteriorated beyond economic repair with wooden structural members badly cracked. The House of Representatives authorized each of the five projects requested. However, the House did not appropriate funds for the three maintenance projects related to the F-RF4C and in the House Appropriations Committee report (report No. 1424) stated the reasons therefor. Essentially the committee felt that it should be possible to make more adequate utilization of existing facilities at other Air Force or Navy installations. The Air Force's choice of Hill Air Force Base as the F-RF4C depot overhaul location was based on coordinated planning by the Air Force, Navy, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Since April 1962, extensive studies have been conducted on the overhaul workloads involved with F-RF4C aircraft. The Office of the Secretary of Defense directed that the Air Force and the Navy jointly explore and assess the advantages of common depot support of these aircraft and develop a plan or alternate plans through which such common support could be accomplished without degrading readiness posture. Plans were to include overhaul of the airframe and overhaul of individual components or systems of the aircraft. In the case of depot repair and modification of the airframe (overhaul) specific studies were made on (a) Overhauling all aircraft at Navy facilities. (b) Overhauling all aircraft at Air Force facilities. (c) Overhauling approximately 50 percent of the aircraft at Air Force facilities and the balance at Navy facilities. (d) Overhauling Air Force aircraft at Air Force facilities and Navy aircraft at Navy facilities. Based on all the information submitted, the Office of the Secretary of Defense determined that the Air Force should overhaul Air Force aircraft and Navy should overhaul Navy aircraft. A minimum number of installations should be involved, additional maintenance capability should not be created and inservice workloads should be limited to 70 percent of peak requirements with 30 percent planned for contractor accomplishment. This decision was based on the following factors: (a) The total number of aircraft to be overhauled each year (approximately 500 Air Force and 400 Navy by fiscal year 1967) would require more than one installation unless a major construction program was initiated. (b) Substantial differences existed between the individual aircraft of the two services. Operational requirements were different and therefore individual systems within the aircraft were different. The aircraft are operated in different environments and therefore individual overhaul requirements are different. For example, because of the peculiarities of carrier operations, involving catapult takeoffs, arrested landings, and constant exposure to salt water, the requirements for work for Navy aircraft are substantially different both in timing and scope of airframe repair from those for Air Force aircraft. (c) Each service could absorb workloads for their particular aircraft within existing intallations without major disruption to present operations, relocation of personnel or major construction expenditures. In addition to the airframe workloads, the studies submitted also included investigation into the feasibility of cross-servicing overload of individual components of the aircraft systems (engines, electronics, munitions, etc.). As a result, a joint planning and scheduling group has been established on a permanent basis at Hill Air Force Base to make individual decisions on these component workloads as they arise. This group is manned by Air Force and Navy personel and is involved on a daily basis in computing requirements and establishing work schedules for each service. It is expected that this action will insure maximum cross-servicing with full consideration of the operational readiness requirements of the individual services. The Air Force decision to assign the management and maintenance of the F-RF4C aircraft to Hill Air Force Base, Utah, was based on the following factors: (a) Existing capabilities at Hill Air Force Base were generally adequate to accommodate this large workload. Maintenance facilities with an inventory value of approximately $21 million can be used without additional expenditures. Only minor facility additions required for peculiar F-RF4C maintenance requirements will be necessary. (b) The aircraft maintenance personnel at Hill Air Force Base were already technically qualified on the types of work to be performed. Aircraft assigned to Hill Air Force Base since 1952 had been of McDonnell Aircraft Corp. mannfacture. Since F-RF4C is also of McDonnell manufacture there will be direct application of this previous experience. (c) The F-101 aircraft workload, presently at Hill Air Force Base, will be substantially reduced at the time the F-RF4C workload reaches its peak in fiscal year 1967. The first three facilities listed above are required to augment the approximately $21 million in existing facilities to be utilized in the overhaul of F-RF4C aircraft at Hill Air Force Base. The hangar maintenance engine/runup is required to provide an inclosed facility for testing aircraft engine systems after completion of aircraft overhaul. This test is required to insure that the engines have been properly reinstalled and that the engines develop the specified thrusts during application of full power, including afterburner. At the present time, on the F-101 aircraft, this work is being accomplished in the open without sound suppression. Sound levels of between 120 and 130 decibels have been measured in adjacent industrial and administrative facilities. The F-RF4C aircraft engine produces sound of from 3 to 5 decibels higher than in the F-101 engine. The facility requested is required to provide for inclosing the aircraft during the runup operations to reduce the sound immediately adjacent to the building to approximately 85 decibels. The design of this facility is similar to that already existing at most major fighter aircraft manufacturing plants. The test cell alteration is required to provide a capability to test the F-RF4C engines after jet engine field maintenance and prior to installation in the aircraft. This test is required to insure that the engine is properly assembled. Fuel, electrical, and mechanical systems are checked to insure that the engine may be safely reinstalled in the aircraft. The existing facility being altered in this project was originally designed for testing reciprocating engines. The alteration to the shop communications and electronics is required to provide adequate environmental control in the existing electronics overhaul shops. The numerous electronics testing carried on in this facility generates ambient temperatures beyond the limits required to properly test the electronics systems being overhauled. The alterations requested will provide for keeping the ambient temperatures within the prescribed limits. There have been extensive studies conducted in the planning for the introduction of the F/RF-4C aircraft into the inventory to insure that the most economical course of action would be selected. The decision by OSD to have the individual services overhaul their own aircraft and for the Air Force to accomplish their portion of this work at Hill Air Force Base was based on detailed consideration of all factors involved and is considered in the best interest of the United States. With regard to the request for logistical administrative space, the House Appropriations Committee stated that the requirement should be restudied and more efficient utilization be made of existing facilities. Additional adequate logistical space is vital to the performance of the assigned Hill Air Force Base mission. Personnel responsible for the worldwide depot logistics management in the procurement, maintenance, and supply of materiel needed in the missile and aircraft program assigned to this base are currently using space in unconverted warehouses, which are deficient in area, lighting, heating, ventilation, and restrooms. The overcrowded unsanitary conditions and inadequate environmental conditions, with range from 60° in the winter to 100° in the summer adversely affect effective performance of duties and employee health. This project provides for the alteration of existing warehouse buildings to provide adequate office space for a portion of the employees working at Hill Air Force Base. At the present time this base has only about 48 percent of adequate logistical space in being and in prior programs. This project will bring the total adequate space up to 55 percent of the requirement. All existing logistical space at this base is being utilized at the fullest, including space in warehouses which is used by deskworkers. Alteration of these warehouses at an average cost of $13.51 per square foot is the most economical method of accomplishing the project. I feel that the Air Force has demonstrated very thorough planning in the best interest of national defense and economy in the choice of Hill Air Force Base for the F/RF-4C depot overhaul function and that the Air Force military construction request for Hill is entirely justified. The facilities requested represent a very small portion of the total plant to be used in support of the F/RF-4C. I urge that these essential projects be approved and that funds be appropriated for the construction. Senator STENNIS. We will go into this carefully. The F-4C twin jet is coming into actual use now? Senator Moss. Yes, it is a McDonnell aircraft. It was first developed for the Navy and then the Air Force also adopted the same aircraft with very slight modifications. In effect, this is one of the aircraft that serves both services, and is an advanced fighter plane. The Air Force is just phasing into it. They are getting the first few now, but this will continue to grow and they have to have a depot to service it. Senator STENNIS. Well, we will look into it carefully and will pursue your statement further. Thank you very much. Senator Moss. Thank you, sir. I do appreciate it. Senator STENNIS. The Fleet Reserve Association has a statement to be presented for the record by Mr. Robert A. Means; the National Association of Home Builders, regarding family housing; the National Guard Association, regarding National Guard facilities; Representative Don Edwards of California regarding National Guard armories in California; and John E. McCollum, president, Springfield, Va., Chamber of Commerce, re Defense Intelligence Agency. (The statements referred to follow :) HOSPITALIZATION FOR RETIREES STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. MEANS, U.S. Navy, Retired, NATIONAL SECRETARY OF THE FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION Gentlemen, I am Robert A. Means, national secretary of the Fleet Reserve Association, speaking on behalf of more than 56,500 career enlisted personnel of the Navy and Marine Corps on the active and retired lists who comprise our membership. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of presenting this statement. I wish to speak briefly on two line items with respect to the question of hospitalization for retirees. The brevity of my statement does not necessarily mean that those I represent are not vitally concerned with what I desire to point out to you today. In this bill there is proposed the expenditure of various sums of money for medical services. Specifically, on page 20, lines 10 and 11, there is proposed These $7,400,000 for a hospital in Jacksonville, Fla.; and on page 20, line 12 and 13, there is proposed $14,500,000 for a new naval hospital at Oakland, Calif. two hospitals do not contain a single bed for retirees or their dependents. It is also our understanding that beds for dependents of active duty personnel are severely limited in these two hospitals. The reasoning is that these dependents of active duty personnel should utilize civilian facilities under the 1956 medicare act. This is also true in respect to the other hospitals proposed in this bill for the other services. In the Comptroller General's report to the Congress of June 1963, referring to the military hospitals in the San Francisco Bay area, it is stated that "failure to make reasonable use of available civilian hospitals for dependents of active duty personnel resulted in unnecessary operation of 97 beds." Further, the report states, "Treatment of these patients under the medicare program at civilian hospitals would accomplish a more economical and effective use of available military hospital facilities." Gentlemen, we contend that the facts and figures from any source you care to seek will prove that care is more economical to the Government in military facilities than care in civilian hospitals. We subscribe to economy-but sending dependents to civilian hospitals is false economy and turning out retirees is economy at the expense of those who serve their country long and faithful and are subject to recall at any moment. One example in comparative cost can be taken from the Long Beach Hospital. It is to be built without obstetric facilities, even though the Navy requested them. The Navy later told the House Appropriations Committee that the added cost for caring for OB cases in civilian facilities under the dependent medical care program, over what the cost would be in a naval hospital, would have been enough to amortize the price of the OB facilities within 3 years. Is this economy? In recent testimony before the Special House Armed Services Subcommittee on Hospital Construction Policy, the Surgeons General of the three services strongly recommended the continuance of care for retirees and dependents in military medical facilities for two very vital reasons: (1) The training received by the medical personnel involved: The Surgeon General of the Army had this to say: "I can only speculate as to the effect of the elimination of these beds upon the graduate training programs for residents and interns. Much clinical experience which is obtained by treating the older patient will be lost. When the number and type of patients are below acceptable level to the accreditation bodies, these programs may have to be either curtailed or eliminated." All three Surgeons General agreed that doctors learn most from older patients and that having some retirees in the patient load is absolutely necessary if the services are going to continue to have a career medical force. (2) Mobilization requirements: The Surgeon General said, "The elimination of these beds has an adverse effect upon the mobilization or emergency capacity of this hospital (Letterman General). If beds had been provided for retired and the dependents of retirees during peacetime, they could be used for the care of sick and injured military personnel during mobilization or emergency situations." This very important aspect of the problem was forcefully brought out by all three Surgeons General. We hope this committee will question the Surgeon General on this point. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has recently stated that civilian hospitals have a shortage of 1,116,000 beds. Should we cause further overcrowding of these facilities by eliminating provisions for retiree care in new military hospitals? Today there is a daily average of 266 beds being occupied by retired men in the Oakland and Letterman military hospitals, according to the Comptroller General. During the entire career of the retired personnel, they have been led to expect medical care in military hospitals following retirement, for themselves and their dependents. We think it should be emphasized that they were not only led to expect it-they received it. Many of our shipmates, who wrote Congress of their concern for the elimination of retiree beds during the hearings on this construction authorization bill in the House, received replies advising that beds were never provided for retirees. It was gratifying to hear the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower). Mr. Norman Paul and his aids set the record straight in the recent hearings by the Special Subcommittee on Hospital Construction Policy, and acknowledge that beds were always programed for retirees before 1961. It is our understanding that the Defense Department bases its decision of not programing beds for retirees in new construction hospitals on a 1961 Appropriations Committee conference report. This was adopted as a new policy. Surely. |