The Justification Data Books which have been furnished contain detailed project descriptions in support of our request. All of the requested projects are designed to improve operational or personnel support facilities critical to Navy or Marine Corps mobilization objectives, and are of definite and continuing importance in building the readiness and responsiveness of both the Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve. We appreciate your past support and earnestly seek your approval of the urgent projects included in this year's program.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, I shall be pleased to answer any questions or provide further information as desired.



DIRECTORATE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, It is my personal pleasure and privilege to appear before this Committee for the first time as Chief of the National Guard Bureau to discuss with you our Military Construction Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 1976. We have carefully considered each project by priority and need, based mainly on the many aircraft conversions that have been accomplished and are programmed for our units.

In keeping with the Total Force Policy, our units continue to receive new, highly complex weapons systems both from the active force and directly off the production line. During Fiscal Year 1975 through 1976 over 30% of our flying units will convert to new aircraft, many requiring a complete change in mission. For example, we are programmed to acquire KC-135 all-jet four engine refueling aircraft beginning in July 1975. This will be the first time a Reserve Component has augmented active strategic offensive forces.

This aircraft requires such things as hydrant fueling systems, demineralized water manufacturing and storage facilities, fuel cell maintenance and the strengthening of runways and aprons.

The Air National Guard has units in every state, Puerto Rico and the Dis-, trict of Columbia. Although the federal mission of the Guard is identical to that of its active and reserve counterparts, it is a state organization in peacetime, as established by the Constitution and reaffirmed numerous times by the Congress. States and communities where the Guard is located share in providing resources necessary to man and train combat organizations. We firmly believe that the Air National Guard has been sustained as a strong and viable force because of this local government involvement.

As previously reported to the Congress, each state is assigned a United States Property and Fiscal Officer whose services may be used to administer design and construction projects at no additional cost to the Air National Guard. Through the use of this available service, we have been able to get the most from our appropriated dollars. At our ANG units the Base Civil Engineer may be appointed the inspecting officer, thereby providing closer day by day control of the construction as it progresses. Additionally, we have enjoyed considerable design time savings enabling our units to more quickly achieve the readiness posture demand of an operational force. We will continue to use this avenue of design and construction management since it has proved to be in the best interest of the Air National Guard mission and the American taxpayer.

Approximately 90% of the flying units in the Air National Guard are presently combat ready. This high level of readiness has been maintained despite the effect of the programmed elimination of five units in Fiscal Year 1975. The elimination was prevented by Congressional action. Although we are converting 30% of our units during Fiscal Years 1976 and 7T, we project a continuing high level of combat readiness.

I must add that our success in converting to new aircraft, and then rapidly achieving a combat ready status, is indicative of the excellent assistance provided to the Air Guard by the Active Air Force. Air Force headquarters here in Washington and the Major Commands in the field have given us strong support, help and guidance every step of the way.

The Air National Guard requests an authorization of $57.1 million for the
FY 76 Military Construction Program. It will provide minimum requirements
to maintain our combat units and support unit aircraft conversions. The program

Tara Rao

is comprised of 107 projects at 50 locations in 38 states. These projects incorporate the use of the newest engineering techniques coupled with modern energy saving ideas and materials. Adequate insulation, efficient lighting by new design methods and recycling of heated or cooled air are examples of our overall conservation efforts. New facilities are designed so that future energy alternatives or sources may be readily adopted when practical. Also within this request is over one million dollars for structural and mechanical energy conservation projects in existing facilities.

There are no creature comfort support facilities such as dining halls, dormitories or recreational building in this program. All projects have a direct impact on improving Air Guard readiness. Many of our units are housed in World War II buildings which are deteriorating at a rate of $11.0 million each year. We continue to make every effort to convert or alter these buildings to support our needs in lieu of new construction.

Under the Lump Sum Authorization/Appropriation procedure, all projects will be cleared with the Committee prior to advertisement, with cost estimate adjusted in accordance with final design.

Our Operation and Maintenance program is not included in this Lump Sum Authorization. The proposed increase in the limit from $25,000 to $50,000 in that Appropriation will permit us to respond more rapidly to changing requirements.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

COMMITTEE SUPPORT Through the recognition of our requirements by this Committee and your support for our requests, we have kept pace with our most urgent construction needs. However, mission changes and aircraft conversions are creating a backlog in our immediate needs. Our request for $55.1 million is to construct the mission-essential or operation projects our units need to achieve full operational readiness in accordance with the Total Force Policy.


and the le ideron

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement in support of the Air National Guard Fiscal Year 1976 Military Construction Authorization Request. This Committee's past and continuing support of our needs is deeply appreciated. I am prepared to answer any questions you may have at this time.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is with pleasure that I meet with you and discuss the Air Force Reserve military construction request for Fiscal Year 1976. We are requesting new authorization in the amount of $16.5 million for accomplishment of the program.

This Fiscal Year 76 program represents a 15% increase over our Fiscal Year 75 program which we feel is necessary to offset increases in construction cost, yet providing minimum essential facilities necessary for mission accomplishment.

Prior to discussion of the Fiscal Year 1976 military construction program, I would like to take a few minutes to bring you up to date on the ongoing Fiscal Year 1975 program.

During Fiscal Year 1975, Reserve construction costs paralleled increases in the civilian construction market. This increase of over 15% has caused us to realign our program so as to get the most from our construction dollar. Priority of direct mission support in the areas of aircraft maintenance, operations and training accounts for over 85% of the total program. These three categories will also receive the majority of the proposed Fiscal Year 1976 program as we complete beddown of missions and replace antiquated facilities that have outlived their useful life.

As to the current status of the Fiscal Year 1975 contract actions, we have 100% of the projects committed with four awarded totaling $679,000 or 5% of our program. Award of the remaining 29 projects is scheduled to be complete by 30 July 1975. We believe the early award of this high percentage of the Fiscal Year 75 program is due to utilizing our own resources for design of projects at bases where we have host responsibility. By utilization of these in-place person

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

nel, we not only reduce design/procurement time but also have shown a considerable design cost savings. Our uncommitted balance for Fiscal Year 1975 and prior years' authorization is $622,000. Realignment of projects resulting from the announced closures of Hamilton and Ellington AFBs accounts for a portion of these funds; however, mission changes, construction cost increases and contingencies on ongoing projects will quickly exhaust this amount.

As previously stated, the Fiscal Year 1975 military construction program will, like the Fiscal Year 1975 program, emphasize construction and modernization of aircraft maintenance, operations and training facilities. Composite utilization of like facilities and projects with long range benefits, such as utility/energy conservation are also stressed. But with the construction industry costs increasing at one of the highest rates of any American business, the Air Force Reserve cannot afford to jeopardize tight money with loose spending.

Therefore, inputs from the field have been closely screened and questioned to insure only absolute mission support requirements with minimum scope make up the Fiscal Year 1976 military construction program. We can assure this Committee that the proposed program will provide the Air Force Reserve the most for the money.

The Fiscal Year 1976 program of $16,500,000 consists of 21 projects located at 12 installations in 11 states. This listing of projects is the result of instruction I have given my staff to seek every means of cost savings and cost avoidance prior to incorporating requirements into the program. In addition, all projects were considered by the State Facilities Board for joint utilization with other Reserve forces. Consideration has also been given to Air Force Reserve utilization of facilities excess to active forces as well as other Reserve and Government agencies.

Balanced against this close scrutiny for dollar savings must be construction requirements dictated by existing missions and mission changes. For example, the construction at Eglin AFB is in support of a mission change from 8 UE C-130B aircraft to 10 UE AC-130A gunship aircraft. This change in type and number of aircraft will also cause an increase in personnel. The projects in our Fiscal Year 1976 programs are the absolute minimum necessary to meet operational mission requirements of the new aircraft and to provide adequate support facilities to recruit and retain the Reservist that man the new mission.

I would like to emphasize the need for adequate support facilities to recruit and retain the Reservist. Our primary mission, and that of all Reserve organizations, is to recruit and train personnel to support the total force policy. To interest a potential Reservist in committing his time and energy in another activity beyond his job and family is going to take adequate training as well as operational facilities. We are competing for a valuable slice of a potential Reservist's time and must provide facilities that are worth that time. I feel that in the Fiscal Year 1976 program a proper balance has been planned so that our recruiting goals and our operational goal are both obtainable. The back-up books provided to this Committee contain detail justification for each project as well as the unit manning statistics at each installation.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my general outline of the status of the Air Force Reserve Fiscal Year 1975 military construction program and the supporting statement for the Fiscal Year 1976 program. As in the past, continued support provided by you and your Committee will be appreciated. I am prepared to answer any questions which you may have.

Senator SYMINGTON. The Army hearing will be tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock on the subject of construction.

Whereas, the subcommittee adjourned at 4:12 p.m. to meet again at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 9, 1975.)






Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 212,
Richard B. Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Stuart Symington

Present Senators Symington (presiding), and Tower.
Also present : James C. Smith, professional staff member; and Joyce
T. Campbell

, clerical assistant.
Senator SYMINGTON. The hearing will come to order. This morning
we will take up title I of the military construction authorization re-
quest. The Army request is for $833,786,000, compared to $611,879,000
enacted in the fiscal year 1975 bill.

The Army appears to be continuing its emphasis on taking care of the soldier. Over half of their request is for soldier-oriented projects. I am glad to see that new initiatives in nuclear weapons security are included for the first time. We will proceed much as we have done in the past. Questions and detailed project justification that are not covered during the hearing because of time will be included in the appropriate place in the record.

We have with us Major General Cooper again this year who will
provide information on the Army's request. General Cooper, it is a
pleasure to have you back. You may proceed.


[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

General COOPER. With your permission, sir, I will enter my statement in the record and not read it. You have already covered the main points of our program this year so I won't repeat those. There is one additional one we have for the first time this year and that is energy conservation. We have $33 million in our program this year for projects where we will be able to amortize them, based on the present cost of fuel, within about 5 years.

We also have a large deficiency request in the program because of inflation.

With those opening comments, sir, since you already covered the main points, I am prepared to answer any questions that you have.

[Prepared statement follows:]

[ocr errors]

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Major General Kenneth
B. Cooper, Assistant Chief of Engineers, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Depart-
ment of the Army,

I am pleased to appear once again before this Committee to present the Department of the Army's portion of the annual Military Construction Authorization request.

Our request for fiscal year 1976 includes $813,786,000 in new authorization plus 16 amendments to prior authorizations, in the amount of $87,474,000. Of the total request, about 78 percent or $633,381,000 is for construction within the United States. About 12 percent or $100,405,000 is for construction in Europe, Korea, Panama and Puerto Rico and the remaining 10 percent or $80,000,000 is for NATO Infrastructure.

The only authorization we are requesting for the transition period of July 1 through September 30, 1976 is $20,000,000 for NATO Infrastructure.

Our military construction program continues emphasis on projects of direct benefit to the soldier. About 60 percent of our request for construction, excluding NATO, is for soldier oriented projects, such as bachelor housing and dinin accommodations, medical and dental facilities and community support facilities. This is down about 7 percent from fiscal year 1975 and results primarily from the new emphasis this year that is being placed on energy conservation and security of nuclear weapons. Our request includes $33,077,000 for energy projects and $36,652,000 for nuclear weapons security as the first increment of these new programs. I will discuss them in more detail in a few moments.

In this year's program we are also continuing the efforts begun in the fiscal year 75 budget to provide facilities that will directly support the stationing of a 16 Division Army and the Army's one station training concept. Last year, $55,067,000 was authorized for projects at Forts Ord, Polk and Stewart, the Army's new division posts, and this year we are requesting $131,756,000. $26,262,000 was authorized in fiscal year 75 for projects associated with one station training and this year we are requesting $87,260,000. Construction requirements during the four years after fiscal year 1976 to include family housing are estimated to cost about $450-500 million for the new division stations and about $220-230 million for one station training.

Before discussing highlights of the various construction categories I would
like to call your attention to the following three tables which summarize the
program. Table I shows the distribution of the authorization request among
major commands in the United States and overseas.
TABLE 1.-Proposed fiscal year 1976 military construction, Army program

Inside the United States :

U.S. Army Forces Command..

$290, 409,000
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command..
U.S. Army Military District of Washington...
U.S. Army Materiel Command..
U.S. Army Communications Command.
U.S. Military Academy---
U.S. Army Health Services Command.-
Various locations, air pollution abatement facilities.
Various locations, water pollution abatement facilities.
Various locations, dining facilities modernization..
Various locations, energy conservation ---
Various locations, nuclear weapons security.


191, 445,000

2, 368,000
20, 722, 000
7, 932, 000
5,937, 000
4, 552, 000
5, 779, 000
51, 961, 000
16, 547,000
33, 077, 000

2, 652, 000
633, 381,000

« ForrigeFortsett »