portantly, it would provide a more economical single messhall, rather than the construction and operation of two messhalls, should another barracks be constructed at a later date. This will cost $5.1 million.

The Army has programed this for fiscal year 1978.

While I defer to their judgement that a permanent facility be constructed rather than rehabilitating the World War II wooden buildings, I believe that the need is of such urgency that it should be included in the fiscal year 1977 budget. With this the Army now agrees.

Again, I thank you for the opportunity of appearing before this committee. I would appreciate thoughtful consideration and approval of these worthwhile and necessary projects.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. McEwen.

Senator Cannon.

Senator CANNON. Did the House add these in, or were they in the program?

Mr. McEwEN. The House, your counterparts of the authorization committee in the House, added the dispensary; the barracks, no. Since then we have resolved the difference between the approach I originally took, as I said, of rehabing the old World War II buildings and the Army's suggestion of a new barracks and mess facility.

Senator CANNON. If they go ahead on this proposal and put in a new barracks, would it mean the taking down of one of the older barracks buildings?

What would be the plan on that?

Mr. McEwEN. I would rather think not, Senator.

There have been some of the old buildings that have been removed. that had gotten just beyond what was feasible to rehabilitate; but most of the buildings are receiving the treatment that these pictures show. where they put the steel siding on.

Senator CANNON. But they do not do anything to the inside of them? Mr. McEwEN. The interiors-no, sir, they have not been done. That is why I think it is such a sharp contrast, to see the rather attractive present exteriors with the steel sidings having gone on them. I am sure if you sent a brigade there from Vermont, they would be pleased with the new exteriors. But when they walked in the door they would say what else is new.

Senator LEAHY. It is sort of like a good-news-bad-news joke.

Mr. MCEWEN. Yes, only the good news did not get to the inside. Senator CANNON. Would the barracks and the messhall be completely separate buildings? Is that what is proposed here now? Mr. McEwEN. No. As I understand it, they would be in one facility. Senator CANNON. In one combined facility?

Mr. McEwEN. The messhall would be more than adequate so that it could handle a separate barracks. That is the Army's plan, as I understand it.

Let me say, General Wray-Oh, I guess he is gone. Well, we have discussed this, and he is more familiar with some of those details than I am. Originally, as I said, I approached it from the standpoint of rehabilitating these old buildings. Senators Javits and Buckley agreed with that approach. The Army felt it wanted the other approach on the new barracks, and we agreed that we would go along with their approach.

Senator CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator LEAHY. Just one thing. These facilities, though, would primarily support Reserve contingents, if not active duty personnel? Mr. McEwEN. Well, I think it would really be both. For instance, in the summertime, as I said, you have something on the order of 500 Active Army, who come in support of Reserve and National Guard training. Unlike our Reservists, and National Guardsmen, who come in for 2 weeks and spend a good deal of their time in the field, these people are there for maybe 3, 4, or 5 months. I would think they would have priority, and should, on improved living quarters. Then in the winter you have a battalion, from the 82d, and 1,200 marines from LeJeune, the 10th Special Forces, and in some cases they come in more than can be handled.

This would provide them with the use of the quarters during the severe winter weather when they are here. So, it would be used, I would say, more for Active Army, and weekends during the winter when Re

serve units met.

Senator CANNON. Well, what happens to the rest of the Navy? You say there are 309 barracks here. You say you have 1,200 marines in there at one time.

Mr. McEwEN. You are quite right, Senator. This would not take care of their maximum needs. That is very true. It would go a substantial way toward resolving their summertime need, for the Active. Army personnel which would come in and do 3 or 4 months' temporary duty. It would accommodate a number of units, however, like the 10th Special Forces, when they came in, and some of the Seabee units. But when a contingent as large as the marines comes in, some 1,200, no, it would not be adequate.

Senator CANNON. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you very much, Mr. Congressman.

Senator Huddleston is here. He has some matters concerning which he would like to speak about in Kentucky, at Fort Campbell.

The chairman, Senator Symington, is still at another committee meeting, and I am chairing in his stead this morning, Senator.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER D. HUDDLESTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

Senator HUDDLESTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to come and express my support for the hospital replacement project at Fort Campbell.

I have a very brief statement I would like to present to the committee. I believe it is important that the subcommittee be aware of the desperate need for the proposed facility. On a recent visit to Fort Campbell, I toured the hospital now in use and, frankly, gentlemen, I was appalled at the conditions that both medical personnel and the patients must now endure.

To say that overcrowding is a problem, that access to emergency facilities is extremely difficult, that the structure of the present 30-odd building complex is suspect, or that patients are in grave danger should fire strike since the present facility has wooden fire escapes throughout-all this would seem to be grievous understatement.

I submit for the subcommittee's information and use a group of photographs which graphically depict the sad state of affairs now present at Fort Campbell's hospital. If there be one statistic clearly demonstrating the need for the replacement project now under consideration, it is in the existing hospital, where between the many buildings. there are interconnecting corridors totaling approximately 7 miles. There is simply no way modern medical delivery systems can be employed effectively under such circumstances.

The 59,000 military personnel and their dependents living in and around Fort Campbell and the 68,000 retired military personnel and their dependents in Kentucky and Tennessee who will be served by the new hospital deserve and need far better treatment. I am sure the subcommittee is aware that although Fort Campbell has a Kentucky mailing address, the fort straddles the Kentucky-Tennessee border. In fact, the actual site of the proposed new hospital is in Tennessee.

Insofar as costs are concerned, I know the Army has already undertaken a thorough review of their original estimate, which was $70.9 million. Information developed from the Army's review and the results of some rather thorough hearings by this subcommittee's counterpart on the House side have pared this amount down to $58.2 million.

It is my understanding the Army is requesting favorable consideration of reinstatement of approximately $2.5 million of their previous cutback. These funds would be used first, to provide additional outpatient clinic space; secondly, to give postearthquake operating design capabilities for the hospital; and thirdly, to include space for installation of sophisticated data processing equipment.

Speaking specifically to point No. 2, it might seem a little unusual. It should be recognized that the Fort Campbell area is, according to recent geological studies, a highly earthquake-prone area. So, the capability of this facility to withstand such a shock and to provide emergency medical services is certainly highly desirable.

I, therefore, not only endorse this project, but endorse the Army's request, and also express my very strong hope that authorization of the resulting $60.7 million can be approved so that construction of the project will begin at the earliest possible date.

Again, I think the subcommittees for the opportunity to appear here today.

If there are any questions, I will do my best to respond to them. Senator SYMINGTON (presiding). My apologies for being late, Senator, but I had a Joint Atomic Energy Committee meeting, which involved $8 billion, and a government guarantee. I wanted to go to it. If we are going to guarantee everything, there is going to be nothing left for anybody else.

Senator LEAHY. To paraphrase Senator Dirksen, $8 billion here. and $8 billion there-after awhile, we are guaranteeing a fair amount of money.

Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, go ahead. I will take over when the Navy comes up.

Senator LEAHY. I have no questions about this. I know the situation at Fort Campbell and the amount of material we have had before the committee; and I know in what bad shape that temporary situation

is.

Senator HUDDLESTON. It is one of those hangovers from World War II that we are still faced with in many of our military installations. Senator CANNON. Well, you know, the thought occurs to me that if this is so earthquake prone, maybe we ought to build it somewhere else.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Well, this happens to be where the people are, Senator. This is the home of the 101st Airborne Division.

Senator CANNON. This is a how many bed hospitals?

Senator HUDDLESTON. At the present time?

Senator CANNON. To this plan.

Senator HUDDLESTON. The plan is 241.

Senator CANNON. 241. Would it replace all of these old buildings? Would they all be taken out?

Senator HUDDLESTON. Yes, sir, they would.

Senator CANNON. What does that run per bed?

Senator HUDDLESTON. Well, we are talking about a figure now of $60 million and 241 beds. I have not calculated that out, sir.

Senator CANNON. It is pretty close to $30,000 a bed. I'll ask Jim, is that within the limits that we have imposed for construction of hospital beds?

Mr. SMITH. We do not impose a limit on per-bed cost for hospitals. Senator CANNON. But we have some general guidelines that we followed for a number of years. Is it within those guidelines?

Mr. SMITH. I would have to check it to be sure, sir.

Senator HUDDLESTON. I think if you were to factor that figure in, it would not be a totally reliable figure, but I am sure it is a useful guideline. The amount of outpatient facilities that we have included there would not be reflected in the bed total.

Senator SYMINGTON. I understand what you are asking for is a replacement of the $12 million that the House cut. Is that it?

Senator HUDDLESTON. Yes. They cut back from $70 million, down to $58 million. I think in the review of it, with this earthquake situation, the Army now feels that they need at least $2.5 million of that back in, which would still be $10 million less than had originally been planned for this project.

Senator SYMINGTON. Well, I am fundamentally opposed to Kentucky. I did my basic training at Zachary Taylor. Senator HUDDLESTON. Did you really?

Senator SYMINGTON. Yes, outside of Louisville.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Kentucky has had a lot of distinguished people, many from Missouri included-we had to go over and get one of them and bring him back, Daniel Boone, you know. Senator SYMINGTON. That is right.

Senator LEAHY. Have they ever had an earthquake there?

Senator HUDDLESTON. Yes. Well, not in this specific area; but there is a large lake along the Tennessee-Kentucky border that was created by an earthquake.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Senator.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Thank you, Senator.

Senator SYMINGTON. I would like the record to show that I thanked Senator Leahy for being good enough to chair the hearings while I was temporarily involved with the Joint Atomic Energy Committee. Admiral, how are you?

Senator SYMINGTON. Admiral, would you introduce those accompanying you.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. A. R. MARSCHALL, CEC, U.S. NAVY, COMMANDER, NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND. NAVFACENGCOM, ACCOMPANIED BY BRIG. GEN. G. L. BARTLETT, U.S. MARINE CORPS, DIRECTOR, FACILITIES AND SERVICES DIVISION, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. MARINE CORPS; A. E. SAMUEL U.S. MARINE CORPS, HEAD, PROGRAMING UNIT, FACILITIES AND SERVICES, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. MARINE CORPS; COMDR. J. D. KIRKPATRICK, CEC, U.S. NAVY, NAVFACENGCOM; CAPT. C. H. CROSS, U.S. NAVY, NAVFACENGCOM; REAR ADM. J. C. METZEL, U.S. NAVY, TRIDENT PROJECT MANAGER; AND REAR ADM. PAUL KAUFMAN, MC, U.S. NAVY, ASSISTANT CHIEF FOR MATERIEL RESOURCES, BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY, BUMED

Admiral MARSCHALL. Yes, sir. I would be very happy to, Mr. Chair

man.

General Bartlett, on my right, represents the U.S. Marine Corps. and on my left is Commander Kirkpatrick; and beyond him is Captain Cross. We have several other witnesses in the back who will be announced as they appear. We do have with us two flag officers. Admiral Metzel, who is the Trident project manager, and Admiral Paul Kaufman, of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery.

Senator SYMINGTON. We will now take up title II of the Navy program, and it is a pleasure to welcome Admiral Marschall back as the Navy's principal witness. I believe this is your third year before this subcommittee, Admiral Marschall, is it not?

Admiral MARSCHALL. It is my fourth year.

Senator SYMINGTON. I see. The Navy is requesting projects totalling $526,913,000 in new authority which compares to $705,509,000 that was authorized in last year's bill.

Admiral Marschall, do you have a prepared statement?

Admiral MARSCHALL. Mr. Chairman, both General Bartlett and I have prepared statements which we would like to insert in the record. Senator SYMINGTON. Without objection, that will be done. [The prepared statements of Admiral Marschall and General Bartlett follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL A. R. MARSCHALL

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am Rear Admiral A. R. Marschall, Commander of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. It is a privilege to appear before you again this year to review the Navy's fiscal year 1977 military construction authorization request.

Brig. Gen. G. L. Bartlett, United States Marine Corps, will review the Marine Corps portion of the request.

FISCAL YEAR 1977 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION

The title II request is 527 million dollars. Of this amount, 10 million dollars is for the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. The title II request for fiscal year 1976 was 744 million dollars, and the amount authorized was 706 million dollars, including 65 million dollars for the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.