TABLE I.- Proposed fiscal year 1976 military construction, Army program.-Con.

Outside the United States :

U.S. Army Forces Command...

3,880, 000 8th U.S. Army----

9, 976, 000 U.S. Army Security Agency.

1, 971, 000 U.S. Army, Europe.-

50,578, 000 NATO infrastructure..

80,000,000 Nuclear weapons security--



180, 405,000

Total, new authorization requested.---

813, 786, 000 Table II shows the construction categories in which the funds are requested and the percentage of the construction dollars in each category.



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

Table III shows funds requested for the period 1 July through 30 September 1976.

TABLE III.- Proposed fiscal year 1976–77 transition, military construction,

Army program
NATO infrastructure.---


Total, new authorization requested.-



[ocr errors]

BACHELOR HOUSING AND DINING FACILITIES The priority element of our annual construction programs continues to be bachelor housing and bachelor housing support facilities. Since the fiscal year 1972 program when we launched our housing improvement program on a large scale, we have obtained Congressional approval of $937 million to construct or modernize bachelor housing spaces. Today approximately 45 percent of our soldiers are living in modernized or new quarters. When we complete the remaining barracks projects approved by Congress in the FY 1972 through FY 1975 MCA programs and the German Offset programs we will be able to accommodate about three quarters of our bachelor personnel in good housing. This year's budget request includes $249,954,000 for construction of 17,733 new enlisted barracks spaces and $48,738,000 for modernization of 9,062 existing enlisted barracks spaces. All of the modernized spaces and all but 1,166 of the new spaces are in the United States. The new spaces not located in the United States are requested for Korea. Our request also includes $2,307,000 to provide 126 bachelor officers spaces in Korea. We are requesting no BOQ spaces in the

United States. After completion of projects requested in this year's program, adequate quarters will be available for about 80 percent of our bachelor personnel.

Closely associated with the bachelor housing program is the program for modernization of dining facilities. This program, aimed at fully modernizing existing permanent dining facilities we plan to keep in our improved food servce system, was initiated last year. This modernization effort provides : utilities improve. ments, modern food preparation equipment, proper serving lines in support of the regular, specialty and short order menus, self-service centers for beverages, salads and desserts and a coordinated decor conducive to a relaxed dining enyironment. In the fiscal year 1976 program, 61 dining facilities at 12 installations will be fully modernized at a cost of $16,930,000. Additionally, 22 more dining facilities included in the various barracks modernization projects will also be modernized at a cost of $8,476,000. We expect the dining facility modernization program to be completed concurrently with the barracks modernization program.

MEDICAL FACILITIES Fiscal year 1976 marks the Army's second major increment of projects in the accelerated Health Facilities Modernization Program. Our request for $91,292,000 for medical facilities accounts for about 12 percent of this year's program. Included are projects for additions and alterations to two hospitals in the United States and one in Germany, the construction of new dental clinics at six major installations in the United States and one medical/dental clinic in Germany.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES Our request for $12,078,000 to provide community support facilities is about the same as that approved in the FY 1975 program. The major portion of the program this year is to provide improved dependent schools at four locations in Germany. Also included are a chapel and recreation center in Korea and a post office and outdoor athletic facilities in the United States.


Because of the Army-wide shortage of adequate maintenance facilities we are continuing our efforts again this year to improve our maintenance posture, We are requesting $43,445,000 which slightly exceeds our fiscal year 1975 request and is more than double the amount requested in fiscal year 1974. This will provide for unit level maintenance shops for tactical equipment at eight major installations as well as one aircraft maintenance facility that will provide direct and general aircraft maintenance support for a five state area.

SUPPLY FACILITIES Our request for supply and storage facilities is $58,786,000. This is more than double the amount included in the fiscal year 1975 request and is due directly to the initiation of a program to improve security measures for nuclear weapons. $36,652,000 is included for this with most of the funds being for Germany. The work in Germany is within a category which will be eligible for NATO funding once the construction standards and criteria involved have been approved by NATO. Due to the urgency of this project we are requesting prefinancing and recoupment will be sought in the NATO forum. We are also requesting funds to accomplish Phase III of the upgrade of conventional ammunition storage facilities in Germany and Phase II of the upgrade in Italy. Other projects include the improvement of supply and storage facilities at five installations in the United States and one in Germany.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT The Army's total request for research and development related facilities is $22,564,000. This will provide for eight projects at six installations and includes instrumentation and test facilities at the Army Material and Mechanics Research Center, Redstone Arsenal, White Sands Missile Range, and Yuma Proving Ground. It also includes the construction of a Research Animal Isolation Facility at Aberdeen Proving Ground to meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Acts and the construction of modern laboratory facilities for aeromedical research at Fort Rucker.

UTILITIES We are requesting $106,790,000 for projects in the utilities class primarily for pollution, control and energy conservation programs. Aside from these two specific programs, we are requesting $15,973,000 for improved water systems

at five installations, electrical power improvements at three installations, central energy plant improvements at two installations, utilities expansion at two installations and road improvements at two installations.

POLLUTION CONTROL Our pollution control program this year includes air pollution abatement projects at five installations for a cost of $5,779,000 and water pollution abatement projects at 22 installations for a cost of $51,961,000. This represents a $40 million increase for pollution abatement over last year's program. The significant increase in funding is for water pollution control and reflects the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Environmental Protection Agency permits recently issued under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System specify at many installations a level of pollutant control that is beyond the capability of present facilities.

ENERGY CONSERVATION We have embarked on a five year program aimed at reducing energy consumption at Army installations in the United States by at least 15 percent. We are requesting $33,077,000 for energy conservation projects at 34 Army installations. The work to be performed includes such things as installation of insulation and weather stripping, attic ventilation systems, double glazing, automatic controls and monitoring systems on heating and air conditioning plants and solar screening. We consider these high return projects as the average amortization period is five years based on present fuel prices.

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

REAL ESTATE We are requesting $12,237,000 for real estate actions in support of the Army mission. $7,200,000 is for obtaining additional training area at Fort Carson, Colorado and $5,037,000 is for obtaining mineral rights underlying Fort Polk, Louisiana. We are seeking to obtain land contiguous to the eastern boundary of the Fort Carson reservation to satisfy a portion of the requirement for additional training area needed.



[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Our fiscal year 1976 MCA program includes a request for $87,474,000 to provide for underfunded and underauthorized prior year projects. This deficiency results for the most part from the greater than anticipated cost growth that has occurred in the construction industry. In some instances, as in the case of pollution abatement projects, the increase has been caused not only by the impact of inflation, but by changes in criteria since the projects were first initiated. A change in the economic climate of the construction industry may be in evidence. During the last quarter of fiscal year 1974 the results of over 70 bid openings revealed low bids that averaged more than 26 percent over the programmed amounts. During the second quarter of FY 1975 28 bid openings averaged 14.5 percent over the programmed amounts. Further, where we were receiving sometimes only one or two bids on a project at the end of FY 74, by mid-FY 75 we were receiving bids from five or six different companies. In the past few months we have noted even more competition. In 27 of 33 bid openings the bids were within the original programmed amount. We attribute these lower bids to the depressed state of the economy. Some of our FY 76 deficiency requests can be reduced based on the bids received, I will address these as we review the program.

SUMMARY In summary, our fiscal year 1976 MCA program is molded to continue our efforts in improving the lot of the soldier by placing emphasis once again on bachelor housing, dining facilities and medical facilities. At the same time we are providing support to stationing of the sixteen division force and beginning a shift in resources to meet the needs for energy conservation and the shortcomings in nuclear weapons security. We have made a sincere effort to insure that the projects requested are responsive to the needs of the Army and will be fully used over the long range.

This concludes my presentation of the Army's fiscal year 1976 Military Construction Authorization request. As in previous years, the detailed project justifications supporting our request are contained in the book which has been furnished to the Committee. The projects are arranged in command and station sequence.

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

I will be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have, or to see that the answers are provided.

Senator SYMINGTON. We understand that the Army is asking to maintain a strength of 785,000 and to increase its active combat force by three divisions. You have already begun construction to accommodate these divisions at Fort Ord, Polk and Stewart/Hunter, is that correct?

General COOPER. That is correct. Senator SYMINGTox. If the Congress doesn't go along with that, will you have lost construction effort ?

General CoorER. We will have lost construction effort if we decide to close bases such as Fort Polk, or Stewart, or Ord. But it will be minimal.

Senator SYMINGTON. How much would it cost if you didn't get the three extra divisions? There is obviously going to be a discussion of that on the floor of the Senate?

General Cooper. It would depend on what the end strength will be. If we have 785,000 end strength, we will still have to provide barracks for these troops. So we would lose about $27 million as a result of closing Fort Polk, only a few million at Stewart and Ord.

Senator Symington. So, in effect, you are saying even if you don't take the people that you think you can turn into combat units, this construction is necessary?

General COOPER. Yes, we estimate that of the $146 million that we have for these posts in our fiscal year 1976 MCA request, about $24 million is peculiar to the fact that we are activating those three divisions. The rest of it would be required someplace else.

Senator SYMINGTON. You can give us a little more detail on that for the record.

[The information follows:]

[blocks in formation]

1 Unique costs are those that would not be required if the Army did not expand to 16 divisions.

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

Senator STMINGTON. Which one of these bases would you eliminate first?

General COOPER. We aren't really decided on that. Bases such as Polk or Stewart would be vulnerable. We would want to review, among other things, our requirements for training reserves. Both of those posts have a lot of land and we would hate to close them if we didn't have to

Senator SYMINGTON. Is there any consideration of continuing construction for people who might be brought back from overseas?

General COOPER. Yes, that is a consideration, but it is not a major one. If we have to bring back divisions from Europe, we would much rather bring back those divisions to places where we had some hard core permanent construction rather than reactivating, for example, Fort Polk with almost no permanent construction.

Senator SYMINGTON. I note a marked increase in the number of flight simulator facilities for the Army. Would you discuss your program in general terms and tell us what savings are anticipated from this effort?

General Cooper. Basically, the simulators replace instrument flying. We have a goal of reducing flying time by 25 percent by the end of fiscal year 1981. These flight simulators are going to help us. The cost per hour is about $218 or $220 to fly the UH-1, that is the Huey aircraft, whereas we figure it costs something less than $40 to operate the simulator. So you save maybe $180 per hour. That gives you an idea. We can translate this saving for Fort Campbell, for example, where we can probably amortize the cost of the flight simulators in a year and a half or 2 years because of this big difference. They are still going to have some live instrument flying, but we expect maybe 10 hours a year per pilot can be done in simulators as opposed to flying in the air.

Senator SYMINGTON. You have a major share of the nuclear weapons security program. For some time there was apprehension about the security of these weapons. In Europe I have taken trips that worried me, so have other members of the Joint Atomic Committee. It is clear what the consequences might be in losing one or more weapons to a country or to some radical element. Are you working on this?

General COOPER. Yes. We are doing two things. One, we have done all we can with the existing facilities now in terms of what you can do by way of guards and reaction forces. In addition, this year we have some $33 million or $34 million just for Europe to improve or start the improvement of the sites themselves. Putting sensors around the outside to detect intruders, these were some of the same sensors developed extensively during Vietnam, putting sensors on the fence, and protective structures for the guard reaction forces there so they can withstand small arms fire, at least.

Senator SYMINGTON. How much money do you plan to spend on this General Cooper. Thirty-four million dollars. We have an additional $2 million for this country; the $34 million is for Germany, which is our major source of concern, where we have the major number of sites.

Senator Symington. You have a lot of other countries where you have them, how about those ?

General COOPER. When I said $34 million, that included Europe, not just Germany.


this year?

« ForrigeFortsett »