MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION , FISCAL YEAR 1975

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000700050002-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 94
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 3, 2005
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: July 31, 1974
• Content Type: REPORT

A srsR.4?
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B00380RO 700050002-72
93D CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVI, REPORT
2d Session I No. 93-1244
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION, FISCAL
YEAR 1975
JULY 31, 1974.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. PIKE, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 16136]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill
to authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with
amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
On page 11, line 10, strike out the figure "$20,648,000" and substi-
tute the figure "$20,948,000".
On page 11, line 13, strike out the word "Feld" and substitute the
word "Field".
On page 18, line 24, strike out the figure "$4,151,000" and substitute
the figure "$4,157,000".
On page 37, line 18, strike out the figure $545,813,000" and substi-
tute the figure "$545,873,000".
EXPLANATION OF THE AMENDMENTS
The amendments are all technical in nature and are designed to cor-
rect clerical and printing errors. The adjusted figures are those origi-
nally recommended by the subcommittee and approved by the full
Committee, and represent no substantive change in the action recom-
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of II. R. 16136 is to provide military construction
authorization and related authority in support of the military depart-
ments during fiscal year 1975. The bill, as approved by the Committee
on Armed Services, totals $2,983,821,000 and provides construction
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
authorization in support of the active forces, and Reserve components,
Defense agencies, and military family housing. Committee review
resulted in a reduction of $347,957,000.
A brief summary of the authorizations provided in H.R. 161:36
follows :
TOTAL. AITTRORIZATION GRANTED, FISCAL YEAR 1975
Title I (Army) Brief of authorizations
Inside the United States -___._----------
8490,
555,
000
Outside the United States ------------ -----
121,
098,
000
Subtotal ----------------------------------
611,
653,
000
Title II (Navy) :
Inside the United States---------------------
492,
042,
000
Outside the United States--------------------
55,
331,
000
Subtotal-----------------------------
547,
373,
000
Title III (Air Force) :
Inside the United States __ - _ - _ _
:326,
203,
000
Outside the United States_
75,924,000
Classified---__
8100000
Subtotal----------------------------- _
410, 227, 000
Title IV (Defense Agencies) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ - - -
28, 400, 000
Title V (Military Family Housing and Ilomeowr,ers
Assistance) ---------------- _-------------------- 1, 185,881, 000
Deficiency Authorizations:
Title I (Army)-------------------------------
8,853,000
Title II (Navy) -----------------------------
21 512, 000
Title III (Air Force) ------______________-----
17, 655, 000
Title VII (Reserve Forces Facilities)
Army National Guard -----------------------
53, 800, 000
Army Reservee ---------------------------------
38,600,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve
19, 867, 000
Air National Guard_
26, 000, 000
Air Force Reserve-------
14, 000, 000
Subtotal---------------------------------
152, 267, 000
T'otal granted by titles I, II, III, IV, V, and
VII-- 2,
983, 821, 000
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
3
BASIS OF THE BILL
Military construction requirements for fiscal year 1975 as contained
in this legislation were developed on the same basis as the Depart-
ment's request presented to Congress for military procurement. This
concept involved the so-called package program method of identifying
our military forces with their primary missions and then assigning to
these forces the weapons, equipment, and facilities necessary to dis-
charge effectively these assigned mission responsibilities.
The Department of Defense requested new authorization in the
amount of $3,278,380,000 for fiscal year 1975 as compared to the $2.9
billion requested for fiscal 1974.
While your Armed Services Committee is well aware of the many
facilities deficiencies, the bill, as submitted, suggested to us that a very
close look at the individual requests was in order and necessary to
assure that only those items essential to our national defense interests
would be approved.
COMMITTEE HEARINGS
The Military Construction Authorization Request, as introduced,
was H. R. 14126. Hearings on this bill were conducted by Subcommit-
tee No. 5 of the Committee on Armed Services. This subcommittee
met on 25 separate occasions and reviewed in depth the line items
contained in the Department of Defense request. The construction
proposals contained in the bill as submitted to the Congress covered
approximately 700 individual line items at approximately 300 mili-
tary installations within the United States and overseas.
After these extensive hearings the subcommittee reduced the bill
$347,957,000 or 10.4 percent.
ORIGINAL DEPARTMENTAL REQUEST AS CONTAINED IN H.R. 14126 TOGETHER WITH THE COMMITTEE ACTION
AS REFLECTED IN H.R. 16136
H.R. 16136
Changes in
adjusted
H.R. 14126
amounts
totals
department
request
authorized for
appropriations
Percent
change
authorized for
appropriations
Army____________________________________
$696,815,000
-$85,162,000
-12.2
$611,653,000
Navy
567,674,000
-21,801,000
-3.8
545,873,000
III______ Air Force_________________________________
468,276,000
-67,049,000
-14.3
401,227,000
IV_______ Defense agencies__________________ ______
47,400,000
-19,000,000
-40.1
28,400,000
V____ ___ Family housing and homeowners assistance---
1, 347, 283, 000
-161, 402, 000
-12.0
1, 185, 881, 000
Deficiency authorization____________________
42,898,000
+5,122,000
+11.9
48,020,000
V11______ Reserve forces____________________________
150,932,000
+1,335,000
+.9
152,267,000
Total- ____________________
3, 321, 278, 000
-347,957,000
-10.4
2, 973, 321, 000
As is evidenced by the foregoing figures, the committee has made
an attempt to substantially reduce the Department of Defense request
where possible without depriving the services of the projects considered
necessary to maintain a strong defense posture.
DEFICIENCY AUTHORIZATION
The Committee is deeply concerned over the recent rapid escalation
of construction costs and the increasing number of deficiencies that
are being requested. While many of these increases are attributable to
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
the abnormally rapid spiraling of labor, materia', and financing costs,
it is beFeved that more progress can be made. in this area if stress were
placed on more timely and realistic development of criteria, design,
and estimates. For example, the Services were presenting to the Con-
gress projects for construction which did not provide for cost increases
anticipated at the time that, a project was scheduled to be placed
under contract. We believe that such budgeting procedures are un-
realistic and reflect budgetary guidance which does not recognize the
realities of current economic conditions. Rather than delay further
those projects already approved by Congress the Committee has
approved increases in prior years' authority in this bill which total
$48 million including $8.8 million for Army, $21.5 million for Navy,
and $17.7 million for Air Force. However, the Committee is serving
notice on the Department of Defense and the Military Departments
that unless definite steps are taken to correct this situation in future
budgets, the Committee will take the necessary action to eliminate
these faulty budget submissions. The Committee further expects the
Department to advise us what steps are being taken to remedy the
situation. The following table shows the approved deficiency author-
izations in more detail:
DEFICIENCY AUTHORIZATION, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION BILL-FISCAL YEAR 1975
[In thousands of dollars]
Existing Additional
Public amount As amended authorized
Law Section Installation authorized by bill requested
ARMY (TITLE I)
91-511
101
Rock Island Arsenal, III__________________________
2,750
3,650
900
92-545
101
Fort Myer, Va-----------------------------------
1,815
3,615
1,800
92-545
101
Fort Sill, Okla -----------------------------------
14,958
16,159
1,201
92-545
101
Canal Zone, various locations_____________________
8,129
9,238
1,109
93-166
101
Germany, various locations_______________________
12, 517
16,360
3,843
Total, Army -------------------------------
4C, 169
49, 022
8,853
90-408
201
NAVY (TITLE II)
Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md --------------------
1,000
4,391
2,391
91-511
201
Naval Air rework facility, Jacksonville, Fla ----------
S, 869
4,534
665
92-545
201
Navy Public Works Center, Norfolk, Va-___-___-___
7, 319
7,019
3,700
92-545
201
Naval Hospital, New Orleans, La__________________
11,680
14,609
2,929
93-166
201
Naval Home, Gulfport, Miss -----------------------
'.',444
14,163
4,719
93-166
201
Naval Hospital, New Orleans, La
7, 386
4,157
771
93-166
201
Naval Air Sta., Alameda, Calif--------------------- _
827
7,756
3,929
93166
201
Marine Corps Supply Center, Barstow, Calif_________
3, 802
6,210
2,408
Total, Navy_______________________________
4:,327
62,839
21,512
93-166
301
AIR FORCE (TITLE III)
Peterson Field, Colo -----------------------------
',843
9,733
1,890
93-166
301
Robins Air Force Base, Ga -__
4, 628
7,324
2,696
93-166
301
Eglin Air Force Base, Fla_________________________
7,039
8,882
1,843
93-166
301
KeeslerAirForce Base, Miss ----------------------
8,786
10,733
1,947
93-166
301
Lackland Air Force Base, Tex_____________________
1i, 509
9,186
2,677
93-166
301
Reese Air Force Base, Tex________________________
4,211
6,461
2,250
93-166
301
Vance Air Force Base, Okla_______________________
371
895
524
93-166
301
Altus Air Force Base, Okla________________________
1,078
1,440
362
93-166
301
Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyo _
i, 834
8, 265
2, 431
93-166
301
Little Rock AFB, Ark____________________________
1,165
2,200
1,035
Total, Air Force ----------------- -----------
47, 464
65,119
17, 655
Grand total-------------------------------
123,960
176,980
48,020
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
5
For fiscal year 1975, the committee was called upon to authorize
the acquisition of 26,935 acres of land at a cost of approximately
$13.9 million. This committee has indicated many times in the past
that it is opposed to additional land acquisitions by military depart-
ments unless strong proof is submitted that such purchases are abso-
lutely essential. For that and other good and sufficient reasons the
committee approved only the acquisition of 4,935 acres at a cost of
$6,683,000.
The real property under military control includes property owned,
leased, or obtained subject to permit, license, casement, or other forms
of agreement granting proprietary use and occupancy rights. As of
June 30, 1973, the military departments controlled 28.2 million acres
of land throughout the world. This land, together with the improve-
ments, had an original cost to the United States of $41.334 billion.
Acreage
(actual
thousands)
Cost of
land and
improvements
(thousands)
United States---------------------- __-----------____________------
25,692
$35,100,743
Possessions-----------------------------------------------------------------
297
1,680,414
Foreign countries --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,180
4,552,956
Total -----------------------------------------------
28, 169
41,334, 113
The real property under military control in the United States
consists of the following:
Controlled
acreage
Percent of
total
Fee owned-------------------------------------------------------------------
6,675,305
26.0
Public domain ------------------------------------------------------------
16,302,597
63.4
Temporary use-----------------------------------------------------------
1,333,989
5.2
Leased
1,117,765
4.4
F3sement-
263, 844
1.0
It is significant to note that only 26.0 percent of the military .
controlled land in the United States represents property removed
from the tax rolls while 63.4 percent is public domain property and
the reminder consists of land areas where lesser and proprietary
interests have been obtained. Over 416,000 acres of military land
controlled in the United States have been donated.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
6
PROPOSED REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1975 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM
[Dollar amount in thousands]
Acres
Eslimated
cost
Estimated
Acres cost
Acres
Estimated
cost
Argry: Fort Carson, Colo___________________
22,000
$7,292
----------------------
22
000
$7
292
Navy:
Naval security group activity, Sabana
Seca, P.R--------------------------
1, 000
1800
----------------------
,
1,000
,
1 800
Naval Research Laboratory, Washington
D.C
198
205
----------------------
198
205
Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads, P.R_____
6
153
----------------------
6
153
Naval Hospital, San Diego, Calif_________
103
3,843
----------------------
103
3,843
Naval Air Station, Meridian, Miss_______
534
22,420 $92
2, 890
626
5, 535
2, 420 92
Air Force:
Eglin AFB, Fla------------------------
4
24
3382
----------------------
4
3382
Scott AFB, III_________________________
6
92
333
251
------
396 90
246
488
333
341
Total ------------------------------
396 90
738
1,056
Recapitulation:
Army--------------------------------
22,000
7,292
___ __-_--
22
000
7
292
Navy-------------------------------
1,777
5, 535
2, 420 92
,
197
4
,
5
627
Air Force-----------------------------
342
966
396 90
,
738
,
1,056
Total new authorization______________
24, 119
1 Authorization only.
2 Restrictive easement.
3 Authorization only for land exchange. Includes $106,000 funding for resettlement (Public Law 91-646).
NATIONAL NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER
The Committee has carefully examined the Department of the
Navy request for authorization of $14.9 million for the first phase of
a multiphase redevelopment of the National Naval Medical Center.
The importance of the total program stems from the necessity to
update and replace the obsolete and dysfunctional clinical facilities
which are inadequate to render quality care to all service personnel
and support the substantial medical education and research program
now in existence. The National Naval Medical Center compound
will also be the site for the new Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences. The new clinical facility will be one of the university's
primary teaching hospitals.
Planning for this redevelopment program has spanned several
years. This program is the result of several thorough studies which
were initiated as it became clear that advancing medical technology
and a vastly increasing work load had outstripped the capability of
the institution. There has similarly been a significant increase in the
number of residency programs, number of other trainees, and an
expansion of the institution's role in training the undergraduate
medical student. Superior medical education dictates availability of
adequate resources.
The Committee desires that this renowned naval medical center
continue to be one of the foremost in the world. The Committee
believes the Navy plan assures the construction of a modern, flexible
facility that will enable progressive patient management with atten-
tion given to functional relationship and ease and economy of expan-
sion. The new hospital will provide increased capability for outpatient
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
7
care. Ancillary support facilities will serve the hospital and other
medical activities at the Center (Health Science Education and
Training Command, Naval Graduate Dental School, Naval Medical
Research Institute, Naval School of Health Care Administration,
and the Armed Forces Radio-biology Research Institute), other
Navy medical activities in the region, and the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences.
The Committee concurs that it is absolutely essential to maintain
ongoing operations and quality health care to the beneficiary popula-
tion throughout redevelopment. For this reason, the Committee
approves the redevelopment phasing concept as proposed by the
Navy as the most viable alternative. The first phase, which is addressed
in the FY-75 Military Construction Program, contains approximately
$14,900,000 for projects which largely meet current deficiencies as
well as being basic to the redevelopment. The projects are for a
medical warehouse, road improvements, public works shops, fire
protection in an existing building, a parking structure, and utilities
improvements.
The Navy advises that they are investigating the feasibility of
seeking the remaining authorization of $152,000,000 in FY-76 with
phased funding over Fiscal Years 1976, 1978, and 1979: In FY-1976
the Navy expects to request the major portion of the funds for the
hospital modernization. The current order of magnitude estimate is
$100,000,000 for this work.
It is planned to include $20,000,000 in the Fiscal Year 1978 pro-
gram to modernize certain portions of the existing hospital, which are
suitable for continued medical use, provide personnel support facilities
and satisfy remaining parking deficiencies.
The Navy will complete the modernization of the Center in Fiscal
Year 1979 with a program which will include $32,000,000 to complete
modernization of existing hospital spaces that are suitable for con-
tinued medical use, and alter the tower to accommodate a consolida-
tion of the medical activities at the Center and in the Washington area.
The new hospital will contain 518 acute care beds. Two existing
buildings will be remodeled to provide 125 light care beds and 107
psychiatric beds for a total capacity of 750 beds. The hospital will be
designed to accommodate 700,000 outpatient visits per year. It will
also continue to support 25 residency training programs. There are
currently 145 residents in training at the National Naval Medical
Center which comprise 25 percent of all Navy medical specialty
trainees. Additionally, it will be one three primary clinical training
centers for the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences,
which will have an eventual enrollment of 800 to 1,200 students.
This facility, along with its tenant commands and Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences, in conjunction with the adjacent
National Institutes of Health and the National Library of Medicine,
will comprise the most modern, sophisticated, and all-inclusive health
care/research core in the world.
The Committee strongly supports the concept of program phasing,
and recommends that the construction identified in the FY-75 re-
quest proceed so that the National Naval Medical Center can better
serve its beneficiary population and support the requirements gen-
erated by the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
8
UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
The Military Construction Authorization bill as submitted con-
tained no request for the Uniformed Services University of Health
Sciences. However, under date of 9 July 1974 the committee received a
communication from the Department of Defense which stated that
the Deputy Secretary of Defense had approved a plan to provide an
initial increment of construction funding in the FY--75 military con-
struction program for the initial facilities required for the Uniformed
Services University of Health Sciences.
The committee, during its markup session, requested that further
information be furnished justifying the request from the Department
of Defense to add $15 million to the budget request. The committee
was told that in order to meet the schedule as stated in Public Law
92-426, which requires 100 medical graduates by 1982, that time was
of the essence in initiating the construction of the program envisioned
by the initial legislation.
It was determined that a "Surge" facility containing approximately
160,000 sq. feet gross space would be constructed as first phase and it is
hoped that this building will be ready by the fall of 1976. It will be a
basic science building which will take an entering.medical school class
of up to 125 students. It will be a very flexible building so that it can
easily be integrated as a permanent structure with the remainder of
the university construction program.
The committee approved the request and added $15 million to the
Navy portion of the bill in an effort to help stay on the schedule con-
templated by public law 92-426.
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT SHELTERS
This program is a continuation of the theater air base vulnerability
reduction program that the Air Force initiated and the Congress
approved in FY 1968. The merits of aircraft protective shelters,
coupled with aggressive ground-based anti-aircraft defense, has been
shown in the dramatic difference in the survival rates of the Egyptian
Air Force in the 1967 war when its aircraft were destroyed on the
ground, and the 1973 war when only an insignificant number of
Egyptian and Arabian aircraft were destroyed on the ground. The
major factor in this reversal of destruction was that in the 1973
conflict the Arabian aircraft were protected on the ground by hardened
shelters that were surrounded by effective surface-to-air missiles and
other anti-aircraft weapons. In light of this experience, we believe it
is prudent to look to the survival of the U.S. aircraft we have com-
mitted to the NATO mission. The $92.3 million of funds provided in
earlier programs by the Congress have provided it shelter for every
U.S. aircraft permanently based on the continent of Europe. However,
we do have commitments to send additional aircraft squadrons to
NATO in the event of force mobilization. Should the Warsaw Pact
nations initiate an attack on western Europe using conventional
weapons, as opposed to a surprise attack with nuclear armed missiles,
there should be sufficient warning to NATO by troop movements,
materiel stockage, and other unusual actions to allow a reactive NATO
mobilization. United States aircraft that we are committed to deploy
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
to NATO during a mobilization would have no shelters at their
assigned bases, and would be extremely vulnerable to destruction by
conventional weapons even with dispersal, camouflage, and vigorous
anti-aircraft defense. The merits of shelters have been recognized in
NATO and the other NATO countries have in being, and under con-
struction, protective aircraft shelters that provide for the major
portion of their forces. The earliest NATO program that could pro-
duce additional shelters needed for mobilization type U.S. aircraft
is at least 15 months later than the shelters that can be built with the
funds requested in this FY-1975 MCP. To keep the momentum that
the U.S. has generated in the shelter program, to provide a visible
deterrent to potential enemies, and to protect our aircraft should
hostilities occur, the Committee believes the shelter program should
proceed. After detailed questioning of witnesses by the committee, it
was determined that the full authorization be provided subject to the
following considerations:
(1) Approval of the $62 million in the FY 1975 program is not a
commitment to authorize the balance of the shelters required in the
European area. The committee directs the Department to take the
necessary actions to secure recoupment of the $62 million pre-financing.
(2) The House and Senate Armed Services Committees are to be
notified 30 days in advance of the award of contracts for the shelter
that the designs of the shelter have been completed and that they will
meet all U.S. and NATO criteria for aircraft protection and infra-
structure funding eligibility. Similarly, notification will be provided
30 days in advance of contract award for shelter doors that the design
selected conforms to U.S. and NATO criteria. These notifications are
required by the committee because we cannot subscribe to investments
of this magnitude without being able to assure the Congress that they
will perform the function promised.
NAVAL HOSPITAL, ORLANDO, FLA.
In FY-74 the Navy requested authorization for a 235 bed hospital
at the Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida. This Committee
disapproved authorization for the hospital and requested the Navy to
restudy their requirements for a hospital that large.
In the FY-75 program the Navy did not request authorization for
a hospital at Orlando. When questioned about this, Navy witnesses
replied that the requirement for Orlando has been restudied and the
Navy has come up with a figure of 100 beds for the active hospitalized
area and 50 beds for the light-care area. The Navy said "these are the
new criteria now that we based our requirements on for the new
hospital at Orlando." Navy witnesses further testified that it would
take a year or a year and a half to redesign the hospital under existing
criteria developed by the Navy and therefore they were not in a
position to come forward in FY-75.
The Committee is aware of the need for a replacement hospital at
Orlando and requests the Navy to go forward with their design effort
so that their budget request can contain a request for this hospital if
possible in the next fiscal year.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
10
REDUCTION IN DEPARTMENTAL REQUESTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
The Military Departments and Defense Agencies submitted their
original requests for new facilities in the total amount of $3.9 billion
which included $1.4 billion for family housing and homeowners as-
sistance.
The Department of Defense and the Office of Management and
Budget, evaluated each project submitted by the departments to
verify that it was needed to support the approved Department of
Defense program. Each project was then examined for compliance
with Department of Defense standards covering size, cost, site loca-
tion and design. In formulating the fiscal year 1975 Military Construc-
tion Program, the Department of Defense statod that they also con-
sidered present and future deployment, the 'Total Force planning
policy, the condition of the existing military plant and the immediate
and long-range requirements for modernization and replacements of
that plant together with overall priorities and specialized needs.
As a reflection of all of these factors, and as a result of this examina-
tion, the proposed military construction request for the Active and
Reserve forces for fiscal year 1975 was reduced. to $3,278,380,000 be-
fore it was submitted to the Congress. That figure includes $1,347,-
283,000 for family housing and homeowners assistance.
A comparison of this year's proposed authorization program with
similar authorizations enacted for the past five years is shown below:
AUTHORIZATION ENACTED, COMPARED WITH FISCAL YEAR 1975 AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
[In millions of dollars[
1970
actual
1971
actual
1972
actual
1973
actual
1974
actual
1975
requested
1. Army--------------------------
292.7
590.1
503.0
558.8
596.1
696.8
II. Navy--------------------------
306.3
268.9
321.8
515.7
570.4
567.7
III. Air Force_____
269.0
2:i6.2
247.3
284.2
260.7
468.3
IV. Defense agencies -_
16.2
9.3
10.6
15.5
10.0
17.4
Contingency--------------------
25.0
35.0
10.0
17.5
------------
30.0
V. Family housing_________________
689.5
804.2
915.2
1,050.7
1,172.0
1,342.3
Homeowners assistance ----------------------------------
7.6
------------
7.0
5.0
/ll. Reserve components ------------
41.0
37.5
80.3
107.2
112.3
150.9
Total------------------------
1,639.7
2,001.2
2,095.8
2,549.6
2,728.5
3,278.4
The construction proposals contained in this program include 263
major bases and 665 separate projects.
The bill as reported authorizes construction for those projects which
the Committee believes must be initiated in fiscal year 1975 to meet
operational schedules, to support new missions, or which are essential
for other compelling reasons such as health and safety of personnel
and the improvement of the most seriously deficient facilities.
The fiscal year 1975 military construction authorization bill con-
tains two distinct parts:
(a) Authority to construct new operational facilities in the
amount of $1.749 million to support the Active and Reserve
Forces.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
A summary of this authority, identified by individual departments
and agencies, is set out below:
Army__________________________________________
$611,?53,000
$92,400,000
$704,053,000
40
Navy__________________________________________
547,373,000
19,867,000
567,240,000
32
Air Force_______________________________________
410,227,000
40,000,000
450,227,000
26
Defense agencies________________________________
28,400,000
----------------
28,400,000
2
Total____________________________________
1, 597, 653, 000
152,267,000
1, 749, 920, 000
100
(b) The authority for military family housing in the amount of
$1,185,881,000, including $5 million for homeowners' assistance.
Details of the committee actions and the content of the programs
approved are set forth in the following material covering the separate
titles of the bill.
The Army request under title I of the bill amounted to
$696,815,000. The committee, after careful review and consideration
of the Army request, approved the following program:
Army request
Committee
approved
Inside the United States_________________________________________________
$557,064,000
$490,555,000
Outside the United States________________________________________________
139,751,000
121,098,000
Total____________________________________________________________
696,815,000
611,653,000
Deficiency authorization__________________________________________________
10,127,000
10,127,000
Emergency construction__________________________________________________
10,000,000
10,000,000
The Committee notes that the Army is continuing an aggressive
program to improve its personnel support. Once again, as in fiscal
years 1973 and 1974, the Army's program is heavily weighted toward
soldier oriented projects. Exclusive of NATO Infrastructure, approxi-
mately 72 percent of the construction dollars are for bachelor housing,
medical facilities and community support facilities.
The Army is also maintaining its effort in combating pollution. The
fiscal year 1975 MCA program shows a 21-percent increase over that
approved in fiscal year 1974 for pollution abatement projects. This
year's program responds both to earlier requirements now technolog-
ically achievable and to new requirements generated by increasingly
more stringent standards, in particular the Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972.
Other projects submitted by Army will improve its operational
capability. Of special significance is a nearly threefold increase in
funds requested to construct maintenance facilities, an item directly
related to the Army's readiness posture.
The following tables summarize the authorization request by Major
Command and by facility class and the authorization provided by the
Committee.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
MAJOR COMMAND SUMMARY
U.S. Army Forces Command____________________. _______-__----_-___
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Com_____________
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 ________-___________________________-_____
Corps of Engineers............................................................
Military Traffic Management and Terminal Service -------- . _______________________
U.S. Army, Alaska ------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Army. Hawaii----- ------------------------------------------------------
Air pollution abatement facillities, various locations_______ ------------------------
Water pollution abatement facilities, various locations__
Dining facilities modernization, various locations
Subtotal inside the United States ---- _-------------------------------------
U.S. Army Forces, Southern Command __________________________________._______
U.S. Army, Pacific------------------------------------- -----------------------
Puerto Rico----------- --------------------------------------------- ----
Kwajalein Missile Range-------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Army Security Agency----------------------------------------------------
U.S. Army Communications Command-
United States Army, Europe:
Germany-----------------------------------------------------------------
Italy--------------------------------------------------------------------
NATO Infrastructure -------- .---------------------------------------------
Subtotal outside the United States --------------- _------------ ---- ------
Total---- -------- -------------------
FACILITY --
CLASSES SUMMARY
Operational and training facilities_______________________ ________________. -----
Maintenance and production facilities____________________________________ -----
Research, development, test, and evaluation facilities------ -----------------------
Supply facilities____
_ _ _ _ _
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - f a c i l i t i e s- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - -
Hospital and medical facilities -------------------------- . _________________ -----
Administrative facilities________________________________________________ -----
Housing and community facilities ----------------------- -----------------------
Housing __
--------------------------------------------
Community facilities ------------------------------------------------ -----
Utilities and ground improvement------- _______________ __________.______
Air pollution abatement_______________________________ _________________ -----
Water pollution abatement ------------------------------ ______
Real estate _______________________________
NATO infrastructure ----------------------------------- -------------- --_____
Total------------------------------ -----------.-----------------.-----
Army request
Committee
approved
209, 494, 000
185, 088, 000
185,205,000
171,344,000
2,497,000
2,497,000
44,972,000
40,461,000
12, 373, 000
5,422,000
9,720,000
7,720,000
25, 046, 000
17, 086, 000
2,515,000
2,515,000
4,550,000
0
15, 726, 000
13, 456, 000
16, 529, 000
16, 529, 000
1,356,000
1,356,000
16, 358, 000
16, 358, 000
10,723,000
10,723,000
557,064,000
490,555,000
4,138,000
324, 000
5,139, 000
1,663,000
1,862,000
0
2,241,000
1,272,000
148, 000
148, 000
532, 000
532, 000
33,532,000
25,000,000
4,159,000
4,159,000
88,000,000
88,000,000
139,751,000
121,098,000
696, 815, 000
611, 653, 000
40, 527, 000
27, 237, 000
45, 021, 000
40, 667, 000
17,364,000
17,364,000
22, 841, 000
19, 811, 000
87,196, 000
76, 513, 000
18,726,000
9,605,000
325,828:000
299, 104, 000
(290,683,000)
(276,513,000)
(35, 145, 000)
(22, 591, 000)
26, 306, 000
15 638, 000
1,356,000
1,356,000
16,358,000
16,358,000
7,292,000
0
88,000,000
88,000,000
Approval is granted for new authorization in the amount of $185,-
088,000 to provide 31 projects at eight U.S. Army Forces Command
installations. Major projects in the approved program are barracks
complexes at Fort Carson, Fort Hood and 'Tort Stewart, barracks
at Fort Hood and Fort Riley, barracks modernization at Fort Bragg,
Fort Campbell, Fort Hood, Fort Lewis, Fort Stewart and Hunter
Army Airfield, and company administrative and supply facilities
at Hunter Army Airfield. Approved medical facilities include an
addition to Irwin Army Hospital .Lt Fort Riley and dental clinics at
Forts Bragg, Campbell and Hood. Also incluced are aircraft parking
aprons and maintenance hangars at Fort Bragg, rotary wing parking
aprons and rotary wing hangar and hangar addition at Fort Carson,
tactical equipment shops and facilities at Fort Hood and Fort Stewart,
and an entrance road at Fort Bragg. Other projects approved are a
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
13
fire station at Fort Riley, alteration of administrative facilities for
the Health Services Command at Fort Sam Houston, water storage
tanks at Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield, storm drainage im-
provements at Fort Sam Houston, improvement to the post water
system at Fort Riley, modification of the electrical system at Fort
Bragg and extension of utilities at Fort Carson.
The Committee deferred the following projects:
Amount
(thousands)
Fort Bragg, N.C --------------------------------- EM service club ---------------------------------
$1,284
Fort Carson, Colo -------------------------------
Land acquisition--_-___-----_------_-----_.
7,292
Utilities extension -------------------------------
1 750
Fort Devens,Mass ------------------------------
Barracks mod -----------------------------------
. 3,377
Fort Hood, Tex-_--_-_-_---__--_---------- Confinement fac---------------------------------
3,622
Entrance road
2, 540
Fort Riley, Kars --------------------------------- Dental clinic ------------------------------------
1,141
Fort Stewart/Hunter Arm
Supportfac -------- ----------------------------
2,793
y
Airfield, Ga----------------------------------- Parachute drying and packingfac ------------------
332
Tactical equipshopandfac------------------------
1,275
The barracks project at Fort Devens, the parachute drying and
packing facility at Fort Stewart and the tactical equipment shop at
Hunter Army Airfield were deferred for questions of a hard require-
ment. The land acquisition at Fort Carson was deferred for questions
of appraised value of cost per acre reflected and incomplete status
of the draft environmental impact statement. The other projects were
deferred for reasons of economy.
The Committee approves $171,344,000 for 43 projects at 17 U.S.
Army Training and Doctrine Command installations. Significant
among the approved projects are barracks complexes at Forts Ben-
ning, Gordon, Jackson, and McClellan, barracks at Forts Eustis,
Rucker and Leonard Wood and barracks modernization at Forts
Benning, Bliss, Eustis, Lee, Rucker and Sill. The Committee approves
medical facilities to provide an addition to the hospital at Fort
Leavenworth, a medical/dental clinic for the Presidio of Monterey
and dental clinics for Forts Benning, Jackson, Rucker, Sill and Leonard
Wood. Also approved are tactical equipment shops and facilities at
Forts Ord, Polk, and Sill, alteration and construction of training
facilities at Fort Bliss, academic facilities at Fort Gordon, the Presidio
of Monterey and Fort McClellan, facilities for basic combat training
at Fort Sill battalion headquarters/classrooms and company adminis-
trative/ supply facilities at Fort Polk, and instrument trainer building
at Fort Rucker, aircraft parking aprons at Fort Eustis and a combat
flight control and operations building at Fort Sill. Other projects
approved are an electrical distribution system extension, a cook and
bakers school and ammunition storage facilities at Fort Jackson, a
night vision laboratory at Fort Belvoir, a gunnery range and com-
missary at Fort Bliss, an electronics and electrical maintenance shop
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
at Fort Gordon, a central processing system facility and an engineer
developments building at Hunter Liggett, a steam line at Fort
Rucker, and an electrical system alteration and addition at Fort Knox.
Amount
(thousands)
Fort Belvoir,Va---- _------------ --------- ____ Aircra"t supply building____________________ $594
Fort Bliss, Tex ---------------------------- ---- Tactical equipment shops ----------- .------- ___ 2,514
Fort Gordon, Ga--------------------------- Printing plant addition ______------ -------- 233
Fort Lee, Va---------------------- ------- Enlisted men's club --_-_.___ .----- ___ 1,376
Da____________________________ Administrative building ------------------------- 7,255
Fort Ord,Calif_Dental clinic ------- _------------ ------------- 1,211
Fort Sill, Okla ------------------------- Theater ---------------------------------_-_ 678
Total reducton_ ------------------------------------------------ ---------.---------- 13,861
Note: The committee felt these projects could be deferred for reasons of economy.
The Committee approves authorization of 52,497,000 for the U.S.
Army Band training facility at Fort Myer.
The Committee approves 17 projects at 14 Army Materiel Com-
mand installations for a total cost of $40,461,000.
For the arsenals the Committee approves an addition to the explo-
sive laboratory at Picatinny, and alteration for administrative facilities
at, Rock Island, fire protection shop buildings, interior electrical dis-
tribution and a weapons quality test facility at Watervliet. At the
Army depots, the Committee approves a vehicle maintenance support
facility and a depot headquarters and administrative building at
Anniston, a care and preservation facility at Letterkennv, alterations
to buildings for Logistics Data Center at Lexington-Blue Grass,
security fencing at Red River, an industrial plating shop at Sacra-
mento, a medical /dental clinic at Seneca, and a chapel center at
Sierra. The Committee also approves igloo magazines at Yulna Prov-
ing Grounds, mobile optical sites at White Sands Missile Range,
11lpgrade of lighting at the Aeronautical Maintenance Center and a
new hospital at Redstone Arsenal.
The Committee deferred the following projects:
Amount
(thousands)
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md____________________ ADP and Communications Center addition --------
$1,030
AMMRC, Maine --------------------------------- Boiler house modernization --------------- .-----
558
Red River Army Depot, Tex ---------------------- -Additi)n and alteration to depot operations build-
891
ing.
White Sands Missile Range, N. Mex______________ Range power ------------ ---------------------
1,766
Do ------------------------------------- Post ciapel addition ------ -----------------
266
Total reduction -----------------------------------------------------------------------
4,511
The Committee felt these projects could be deferred for reasons of
economy.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
15
U.S. ARMY COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND
(Inside the United States)
The Committee authorizes $5,422,000 for the U.S. Army Communi-
cations Command. The authorization includes a consolidated test
support facility and a commissary at Fort Huachuca and electric
equipment maintenance storage, electric distribution reconfiguration
and interior water supply at Fort Ritchie.
The Committee deferred the following project:
Installation Amount
Project (thousands)
Fort Huachuca, Ariz________________________ Academic building___________________________ $6,951
In the original announcement to move the Intelligence activities
from Fort Holabird to Fort Huachuca, the Department of Defense
stated that facilities were available for the school at Fort Huachuca,
therefore, the Committee feels that this project could be safely deferred
for economy reasons.
U.S. ARMY MILITARY ACADEMY
The Committee approves new authorization of $7,720,000 to provide
alteration of cadet barracks, a public comfort station, and an addition
to the gymnasium at the U.S. Army Military Academy.
The Committee denied full authorization for the following project:
Installation Project Amount
(thousands)
U.S. Military Academy, N.Y----------------------- Gymnasium ----------------------------------- r $2,000
While recognizing the need to improve and expand the West Point
Gymnasium, the Committee is of the opinion that by careful modi-
fication of the design through value engineering, an adequate facility
can be provided at a reduced cost.
New authorization of $17,086,000 is approved for the U.S. Army
Health. Services Command. The authorization includes electrical
power mprovement at Fort Detrick and electrical mechanical upgrade
for five hospitals at various locations in the United States.
The Committee deferred three of the eight hospitals included in the
electrical mechanical upgrade as follows:
Amount
Installation Project (thousands)
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
The Committee feels that the hospitals at Forts Devens, Bliss, and
Jackson which were completed in 1971 and 1972 can be safely deferred
without danger in loss of accreditation.
Approval is granted for it laboratory addition costing $2,515,000 at
the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.
MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND TERMINAL SERVICE
The Committee denied the following project:
Amount
Installation Project (thousands)
Sunny Point Military OcaanTerminal, N.C----------- Disposaldikes------ ___ ---------------------- $1,550
'L'he Committee is of the opinion that the construction of dikes to
retain spoil from maintenance dredging should properly be charged to
maintenance funds.
U.S. ARMY, ALASKA
The Committee approves five projects in Alaska amounting to
$13,456,000. The approval provides for a power distribution line at
Fort Greely, it dental clinic at Fort Richardson, and a cold storage
warehouse, barracks modernization and dining facilities improvement
at Fort Wainwright.
The Committee deferred the following project:
Amoun t
Installation Project (thousands)
Fort Richardson -------------------------- ____ Airfield paving and lighting -_____________---- $2,270
The Committee felt that this project could be deferred for reasons
of economy and because Elmendorf AFB facilities can be utilized.
ITS. ARMY, HAWAII
1'or Hawaii, the Committee approves four projects totaling $16,-
529,000. At Schofield Barracks, the Committee approves Phase I of
aviation facilities, barracks modernization and a transformer sub-
station. At Tripler General Hospital, a barracks modernization project
is approved.
In support of the national goal in reducing environmental pollution
the Committee approves the Army request for $17,714,000 toprovide
air and water pollution abatement facilities. Of this total $1,356,000
are for air pollution abatement projects and $16,358,000 for water
pollution control projects. 'rhe total authorized is a 21 percent increase
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
over the amount requested and approved in FY 1974. This reflects
the first onset of requirements growing from the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. As these requirements
develop further, even larger sums are anticipated for pollution abate-
ment efforts in future MCA programs.
(Inside the United States)
The Committee approves $10,723,000 for modernization of dining
facilities at ten installations at various locations in the United States.
This project is an important facet in the Army's program to improve
overall Service life. Modernization of these outdated, inefficient
dining facilities will significantly increase the Army's capability to
provide appealing wholesome meals so important to the soldiers well
being.
U.S. ARMY, SOUTHERN COMMAND
The Committee approves the Army request for one project at the
U.S. Army, Southern Command for a total of $324,000. The approved
project provides a commissary addition at Corozal.
The Committee deferred the following projects:
Amount
Installation Project (thousands)
Fort Amador, C.Z------------------------------- EM barracks ---------------------------------- Fort Clayton, Cl------------------------------- Air-conditioning, administration building --------- 1,633
Corozal,C.Z -------------------------------------------------------- Air-conditioning, finance office------------------ 233
The barracks project at Fort Amador was deferred for questions of
a hard requirement. The other projects were deferred for reasons of
economy and low priority.
U.S. ARMY, PACIFIC
For Korea, the Committee approves two projects totaling $1,663,-
000. These are a new barracks and community facilities.
The Committee deferred the following projects:
Amount
Installation Project (thousands )
Korea ------------------ A/C Seoul Hospital, Yongsan-------------------- $371
Barracks modernization------------------------ 3,105
Total reduction------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3,476
The Committee felt that the air conditioning project for Yongsan
hospital could be deferred since it is not in patient wards. The barracks
modernization project was deferred for lack of a hard requirement.
H.R. 1244 O-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
The Committee deferred the following project:
Amuun t
Installation Project (thousands )
The Committee felt this project could be deferred for reasons of
economy. The present facility can continue in use for at least another
year.
Two projects are approved by the Committee for the National Mis-
sile Range for a total cost of $1,272,000. The approval provides for
additional instrumentation and technical support facilities and an
incinerator/compactor.
The Committee deferred the following projects:
Amount
installation Project (thousands)
Kwajalein Missile Range --------- _-_------ _--- Air conditioning barracks and dining facilities---_ $465
Fnnylabegan power addition -------------------- 504
Total reduction ------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----- 969
The Committee feels these projects can be safely deferred as they
are relatively low priority items.
U.S. ARMY SECURITY AGENCY
(Outside the United States)
One project at an ASA overseas location, for an electrical mainte-
nance shop and warehouse, is approved for $148,000.
U.S. ARMY COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND
(Outside the United States',
The Committee approves the Army request for upgrading power
at Futenma, Okinawa, an overseas communications site, at a cost of
$532,000.
The Committee grants new authorization for U.S. Army, Europe in
the amount of $117,159,000. Included are "83,000,000 for NA'T'O
Infrastructure, $25,000,000 for various installations in Germany and
$4,159,000 for Camp Darby, Italy. Projects approved for installations
in Germany are missile operational facilities at, Zweibruecken, it
vehicle maintenance facility at Nahbollenbacli, maintenance facilities
at Wildflecken, maintenance hardstands at various locations, improve
ammunition storage at various locations, a radio relay site, and it
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
Defense satellite communications system facility. Other projects
approved for Germany are alterations to the 97th General Hospital
at Frankfurt, new dependent schools at Heidelburg and Ulm. The
Committee also approves a medical clinic and improvement of am-
munition storage facilities at Camp Darby, Italy.
The Committee deferred the following projects:
Amount
(thousands)
Pruem----------------------------------------- Upgrade operations facilities --------------- -----
$1, 177
EM barracks with dining facility-----------------
2,482
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- Improve ammo
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
storage QRS -_--_-_- -_------_---
-
AKitzimberg -n
n-
1
1 , 545
ge
school -----------------------------
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
2,463
1
Commissary addition---------------------------
865
The operations facilities and EM barracks with mess at Pruem, the
dependent school and commissary addition at Kitzingen were deferred
for reasons of economy. While the need to improve the ammunition
storage facilities is recognized, the Committee is of the opinion that
through value engineering, an adequate facility can be provided for
the Quick Reaction Storage Sites (QRS) at a reduced cost, therefore,
the QRS portion of the project is de erred.
EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION
As in previous years, the Committee has approved authorization of
$10,000,000 to meet unforeseen situations occasioned by (a) unforeseen
security considerations, (b) new weapons development, (c) new and
unforeseen research and development requirements, or (d) improved
production schedules. Each project to be accomplished under this
authority must meet strict criteria specified by the Committee and
must be reported to the Committee before the project can be started.
AMENDMENTS TO PREVIOUS AUTHORIZATIONS
The Army reported to the Committee that it is unable to build a
confinement facility at Fort Sill, a barracks at Fort Myer, a barracks
modernization project for the Panama Area, industrial waste treat-
ment facilities at Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant or the separa-
tion of the storm and sanitary sewer systems at Rock Island Arsenal
within authorization granted in previous years. Increases in construc-
tion costs due to unexpected inflation growth and necessary changes
in the projects require a deficiency authorization of $6,284,000 for
these five CONUS Army installations. In addition to the above
deficiencies, the Army also reported that it is unable to build three
projects in Germany within authorization granted in previous years.
These are a barracks at Pruem Post, additions to dependent schools
and new dependent schools at various locations in Germany. Extraor-
dinary increases in construction costs in Europe accompanied by
revaluations of the dollar have generated the need for a deficiency
authorization of $3,843,000 for these three projects in Germany. The
Committee denied the Cornhusker AAP request for $350,000 and
reduced the Fort Sill request by $924,000 and approves an Army
deficiency request in the amount of $8,853,000.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
A summary of the actions taken by the Cornu:.ittee on the program
originally submitted by the Army are tabulated below by project:
P
roject
otion
(thousands)
Installation
- - - -------- - ---- EM servile club .- . - - - - - - - - - - -
_
Fort Bragg
N
C
-$1,284
----
.
- ---- _
,
----- - Land acgsisition----- _- ____-_
F o r t Carson
Colo
-7,292
_----- _- ------------ -
,
-__ ___. _
UtilitiesExtension
1 -750
___
--------------------- Barracks mod -------- _
-
-
Mass
Fort Devens
-3,377
-----
-
-
,
------------- Confinement fac------ _ -_- ------- _..--____--
Fort Hood
Tex
-3, 622
---------------------
,
Entrance road -----__ --- ------- -- _------
-2,540
Fort Riley
Kans
--------------------------- Dental clinic ------------- - --------
-1,141
,
------
Support lac ----------------------- ---------
-2,793
Ga_____________ Parachute drying and packing fac------- _-__-_____
Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield
-332
,
Tactical Equip shop and ..-__________
-1,275
Fort Belvoir-------------------- _---------------- Aircraft supply bldg--- --------
-594
514
2
Fart Bliss, Tex --------------------- ------- ------ Tactical equip shops--_-_
--------------------- Printing Aantaddn-___
Ga
-
Fort Cordon
-------- _____--________
-
,
-233
-
,
--------
V a
Fort L e e
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EM club------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-1,376
,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e b l d g _ _ _ _ .
------------------ Dental cl n i e -------- _ - -
-
-
F o r t Ord
Calif
-----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-7, 255
-1,211
-------------
-
-
,
Okla
F o r t Sill
----------------------- --- ---- Theatre ---------------------------- ------ ---
-678
,
-
Md-------------------- ADP and comm center addn-_-_______-__________-
Aberdeen Proving Ground
-1,030
,
______________--------------- Bailer house mod--------- ------------
Mass
AMM RC
--558
,
_Depot
------------------ Addition and alt to depot op building ---- ---------
RedRiverArmyTex---
-891
-
,
N. Mex_______________ Range power---------------------- -------------
White Sands Missile Range
-1,766
,
Post chapel addn---- -- ----------------------
-266
-------------------------- Academic bldg ---------- ----------------------
Ariz
Fort Huachuca
-6, 951
---
,
-------------------- Gymnasium--------------- ------------------
N.Y
Military Academy
U
S
1 -2,000
---
.
.
,
-------------- ----------------------- Electrical mechanical upgrade--__-_____-_______-
Various
1 -7,960
--
Fort Blis,
Tex ---------- ----------------------
(-2, 627)
,
Mass ----------------- ______ -------
Fort Devens
(-2,160)
,
Fort Jacl son, S.C__------
(-3,173)
Sunny Point Military Ocean Terminal, N.C---- ------ Disposal dikes -----------------------
-4, 550
- ----------------- ------ Airfield paving and lighting --------------------- ._
Fort Richardson
Ark
-2, 270
,
---
C.Z EM barracks------------ ------ ----------------
Fort Amador
-1, 948
,
Fort Clayton. C.Z------------------------------- Air-conditioning admin bldg______________
-1,633
3
----------- ---------- ------------ Air-conditioning finance Ofc-------- ---------------
Corozal
C.Z
-23
,
-
-- __--------._------------ AFEEstation ----------- ------- ------------------
P.R
FortBuchanan
-1,862
,
----
Kwajalein Missile Range __----------------------- Air-condtioning barracks and dining fac-____---___
-465
Ennylabcgan power addn___________ ___________..-
-504
Various----------------------- -
Germany
General cut------------- __ _--------- --------
-8, 532
,
Pruem
---------- ------------- Upgrade operations fac--------------- -----------
(-1, 177)
-------
EM barracks w/dmmgfac_____---___________-___
(-2,482)
--------------------- Improve ammo storage QRS-------- .------- -------
--
Amberg
--
(-1, 545)
---------------
--
--
----------------- Dependent school --------------------------------
-
Kitzingen
(-2, 463)
--
-------------------
Commissary addition _______________-______-_.
(-865)
Korea
-------------------------- A/C Seoul Hospital -------------------------------
--
-371
-
-------------
Barrack! mod----------- ------ ---------------
-3, 105
Total reduction-------------------------------. ------------ - - -----
r Partial reduction.
The Navy requested $567,674,000 under title 11 of the bill. After
careful review and consideration of the Navy's request, the committee
approved a program of $545,873,000 as shown in the following tabula-
tio n :
Navy
request
Revised
Committee
approved
Inside the United States________________________________________
532,021
531,820
492,042
Outside the United States ------------------------------ -----------
35,653
35,653
55,331
Total ----------- ----------- ------------ --------------------
567,674
567,473
547,343
General appropriations reduction. ---------- _------------------------
0
0
1,500
Total new authorization, title ll------ _______ ____ ___________
567,674
567,473
545,873
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
21
All projects requested in this year's authorization bill were included
in the FY 1975 request for appropriations, except for the following:
't'housands
Naval Security Group Activity, Sabana Seca, P. R--------------------- $800
NAVY PROGRAM SUMMARY
On June 12, 1974, the Navy requested some changes to their pro-
gram, which are reflected above, under the original and revised re-
quest, and which are detailed below:
Inside the United States:
9th Naval District:
Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, III: Bachelor enlisted quarters (Hos-
pital Corps School)________________________________________________
2,468
0
(2
468)
14th Naval District:
Commander in chief, Pacific, Oahu, Hawaii: Intelligence Center, Pacific_
0
2
700
,
2
700
Marine Corps:
Marine Corps Supply Center, Barstow, Calif.: Potable water system____
1,157
,
724
,
(433)
Net title II new authorization changes ------------- .-------------------------------------- (201)
This program contains the new facilities and replacement and
modernization projects needed to support the operating forces of
the Navy. Approximately 43 percent of the program was requested
to support new missions of the Navy. Projects that are in support of
current missions of the Navy were allocated 23 percent of the program
and the remaining 34 percent was assigned to replacement and
modernization projects. The Navy, this year, stressed in its program
operational facilities which comprises 10.5 percent of the construction
authorization request, maintenance and production facilities with
28 percent, medical facilities with 15.4 percent, bachelor housing and
community facilities with 16.3 percent and pollution abatement with
10.4 percent.
Projects in the operational category include airfield runways,
parking aprons, operational buildings, and waterfront operational
facilities which range from berthing piers to a floating drydock facility.
Training facilities include applied instruction facilities and opera-
tional trainer projects that will provide space for the installation of
aircraft simulators that will simulate the aircraft characteristics and
tactical environment.
The maintenance and production category will provide support to
aircraft engine and avionics maintenance activities and mine assembly
and torpedo overhaul shops. The major portion of this category is
for the refit facilities of the TRIDENT Submarine Weapons System.
This year's program for medical facilities has been allocated to
accelerating the replacement of World War II and other substandard
medical facilities.
Significant emphasis is again being placed this year on bachelor
housing and messing facilities for improving the living environment
for Navy and Marine Corps personnel.
This year's program will provide new and modernization of bachelor
enlisted and officers' quarters as shown below:
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
22
Bachelor enlisted
Bachelor officers
Navy
Marine
Corps
Total
Navy
Marine
Corps
Total
New spaces ------------
2,806
3,108
5,914
159
0
159
Modernization ---------
585
524
1,109
-------
0
--
0
-----
0
Total ------------
3,391
3,632
7,023 159 0
159
BREAKDOWN OF THE APPROVED NAVY BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS PROGRAM, BY RATE STRUCTURE
Ratings
Navy
Marine C rps
Total
Percent
Recruits (open bay) ---------------------------------
0
0
0
0
E2 to E4___________________________________________
2,229
3.552
5,781
82.3
E5 to E6_______ _______
1,055
80
1,135
16.2
E7 to E9___________________________________________
107
0
107
1.5
For pollution abatement, this year's request continues an aggressive
program initiated by the Navy in 1968 to abate air and water pol-
lution at Naval and Marine Corps installations.
The committee carefully considered all projects and the following
table summarizes the authorization requested and approved for
each Naval District.
PROGRAM SUMMARY (SEC. 201)
[In thousands of dollars]
Naval district
Inside the United States:
1st Naval- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - District ----------------------------------- 3d Naval District ---- _-------------------------------------------------------
4th Naval District ____-_________________________________________- _-----
Naval District, Washington, D.C-------------------------------------- --------
5th Naval District ------ _----------------------------------------------------
6th Naval Distrlet -------------------- _------------------------- __--
8th Naval District -----------------------------------------------------------
9th Naval District ------------------------- _--------------- _---- _---------- _
11th Naval District -------------------------------------------------- ------
12th Naval Dist rict_____________-------- ____------------ _ ______
13th Naval District---------------------------------------------------------
14th Naval District______________ ----------------------------------------------------------
Marine Corps -_____ _ -_-___ ____________________________
Various locations:
Navy
request,
fiscal year
1975
6,354
9,982
28,909
48,848
93,822
6,338
10, 164
94,817
6,847
1 114,501
9,327
40,810
Committee
approved
2,354
7,646
34,287
46, 247
89,914
6,338
It, 164
84,849
2,048
2 102,
199
5,656
40,810
Trident facilities ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
Pollution abatement, air ----------------- ---- _____-----------
9,849
9,849
Pollution abatement, water -------- _--------------------------------------
44,251
44,251
Total inside the United States --------- ------------------------- ----- -
531,820
492,072
General appropriations reduction_________________________________0
1,500
Total--------- -------------------------------------- -----------
531,820
490,542
Outside the United States:
10th Naval District ---------------------------------- -----------------------
5, 159
5, 159
15th Naval District ---------------------------------------------------------
800
800
Atlantic Ocean area -------------------- -------------------------------------
6,059
4,183
European area ---------------------------------------------- ----- ----- -
2,070
1,759
Indian Ocean area----- ------ -----------------------------------------
0
29,000
Pacific Ocean area ----- ------- ----------- ---
16,468
9,333
Various locations:
Pollution abatement, air ------------------------------------------ ------
1,059
1,059
Pollution abatement, water _ --------------------------------- -----------
4,038
4,038
Total outside the United States _ _------ ---------------- ------
35, 653
55, 351
General support programs. ------------- _ ---------- _----------- _----- ------
567,473
545,873
Total authorization for appropriations____ _________ _______________ _____
567, 473
545,873
I Includes $103,808,000 for Trident facilities.
2 Includes $95,000,000 for Trident facilities.
ApprovedPFidto I11sa 12`1009 M Sec. CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
23
The committee recognizes that all of the projects in this year's
program are valid projects. However, the need for austerity in military
construction required the committee to deny some projects which
were shown as lower in priority than other projects in this year's
program. Where the committee gives as reason for denial of the
project "low priority", or "deferred" the project was denied without
prejudice to a subsequent program.
FIRST NAVAL DISTRICT
The committee approved $5,430,000 for 5 projects in the First
Naval District. The most significant project approved was the
bachelor enlisted quarter modernization project for the Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine.
The project will provide rehabilitated living spaces, dining facilities
and a renovated EM Club for bachelor enlisted personnel utilizing
three existing barracks buildings.
The committee denied the following projects:
Amounts
Installation and project (thousands) Reason
Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, R.I.:
Sims Hall alterations__________________________________________ $971 Low priority.
Public works administration building_______________________________ 600 Deferred.
For the Third Naval District, a total of $2,354,000 for two projects
were approved.
The bachelor enlisted quarters project for the Submarine Base,
(Submarine Medical Center) New London, Connecticut will house 137
men and the bachelor enlisted quarters project at the marine barracks
will house 53 men.
The committee denied the following project:
Amount
Installation and project (thousands) Reason
The committee approved $7,646,000 for a total of 4 projects in the
Fourth Naval District. The major projects approved at the Naval
Air Test Facility, Lakehurst were an Industrial Building Moderniza-
tion project which will provide industrial space for the manufacture
of prototype equipment in support of research and development pro-
grams on catapults, arresting gear, ground support equipment and
visual landing aids and an Engineering Building which will house 730
professional, technical and clerical personnel and a civilian cafeteria.
The Committee denied the following project:
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
Amount
Installation and project (thousands) Reason
Navy Ships Parts Control Center, Mechanicsburg, Pa.; Conversion to administrative $2, 336 Deferred.
area.
NAVAL DISTRICT-WASHINGTON, D.C.
A total of x+34,287,000 was approved for projects in the Naval
District-Washington, D.C.
For the Commandant, Naval District-Washington, a Building
Rehabilitation project to improve portions of 3 buildings was approved.
At the Naval Research Laboratory, a land acquisition project will
acquire 198 acres for a buffer zone around the Maryland Point
Observatory.
The Bulkhead replacement project at the Naval Academy,
Annapolis was approved. The significant projects approved at the
National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda were the medical warehouse
project which will provide a medical supply facility to support the
medical facilities in the region and the Medical Center Modernization
(Parking and Utilities) project which will improve vehicle circulation
and parking.
The committee denied the following projects:
Installation and project
Amount
(thousands)
Reason
Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.: Air-conditioning plant- _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
$3, 172
Low priority.
Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md.: Luce Hall addition and modernization project- _ _. _
6,450
Do.
The committee added the following project:
Uniformed Services, University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.: Surge
15,000
See following
facility.
remarks.
The committee added the Surge sj'acility project for the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences at Bethesda, Maryland that
will be used to provide space to accommodate 125 medical students.
This facility is needed to permit orderly growth of the University- and
aii ability to comply with Public Law 92-426 and graduate 100 medical
students by 1982.
The committee approved $46,247,000 for 2 - projects in the Fifth
Naval District. The significant projects are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
At the Naval Station, Norfolk, Va., there were two major projects
approved. Tho bachelor enlisted quarters project will provide space
for 504 men.
The pier utilities project will provide utility services for piers so
that ships may assume "cold iron" condition.
At the Naval Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia, the POL pipeline
project provides storage tankage and provides for sludge piping
between the Naval Station and Craney Island.
At the Norfolk Regional Medical Center, there were three significant
projects approved. The Dispensary Replacement project will con-
struct a dispensary at Sewells Point replacing two existing dispensaries
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
25
at the Naval Operating Base; the dispensary and dental clinic project
at the Naval Air Station, Oceana, will replace the present facility
which is undersized and functionally obsolete; and the hospital
modernization project will construct new supporting facilities, up-
dating of substandard utility systems and demolition of excess
structures.
The committee denied the following projects:
Installation and project Amount
(thousands) Reason
Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Va.: Command control and administration
building. $2, 030 See remarks
Naval AirStation, Norfolk, Va.: Operational flight training facility ------------------- 571 Deferred.
Total-------------------------------------------------------------- 2,601
The Navy testified that on May 24, 1974 the Chief of Naval Opera-
tions announced a plan to consolidate fleet commands on July 1, 1975
and with this announcement the requirement was changed for the
Command Control and Administrative Building at the Naval Amphib-
ious Base, Little Creek, Virginia. The Navy explained that there was
a large deficiency in administrative space at the base and that this
facility was still needed. The committee accepts the fact of a defi-
ciency, but feels this project should be deferred until thorough
planning has been completed for the new requirement.
SIXTH NAVAL DISTRICT
For this district, the committee approved $89,914,000 for 37 proj-
ects at 16 naval installations in the States of Florida, Mississippi,
South Carolina, and Tennessee.
The significant projects approved are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
At the Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, the major project approved
was an Aircraft Maintenance Hangar which will support 60 additional
carrier based ASW Aircraft newly assigned to the Station.
At the Naval Regional Medical Center (Naval Hospital), the hospi-
tal modernization project will upgrade the hospital to meet National
Fire Protection Association regulations and provide badly needed
support facilities, the dispensary and dental clinic at NAS, Cecil Field
will replace an operationally substandard facility, and a dispensary
and dental clinic at Naval Station, Mayport will accommodate the
anticipated 74,373 eligible medical beneficiaries at that Station.
At Naval Training Center (Service School Command), Orlando, a
nuclear power training building project will allow the relocation of the
Mare Island School and the Bainbridge school and consolidate them
in a newly constructed building.
At the Naval Air Station, Pensacola, there were three major proj-
ects approved. The general warehouse project will replace a deterio-
rated, structurally unsound facility which was converted from a sea-
plane hangar; the aircraft cleaning and disassembly facility project
will consolidate the many preparatory operations into one modern and
efficient building, and the consolidated public works center project
will house the maintenance, administration and storage functions.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
At the Naval Technical Training Center, the Bachelor Enlisted
Quarters project will satisfy the programmed increases in housing
requirements which resulted from the electronic warfare training
mission.
For the Naval Hospital, Beaufort, South Carolina, the hospital
modernization project will provide for the modernization of clinical
and support spaces, alterations to provide adequate fire protection,
provision of central air conditioning,, and the raplacernent of steam
distribution and condensate return piping.
The berthing pier project at the Naval Station, Charleston will
provide a berthing pier complete with utilities, dredging to 35 feet,
extension of shore bulkhead and demolition of a small barge pier.
Also at Naval Station, Charleston, there will be a berthing pier
utilities project which will provide "cold-iron" utility services, thereby
allowing better maintenance of shipboard equipment, and reducing
watch standing requirements.
At the Naval Supply Center, Charleston, the conversion of Pier K
to a fueling pier will help meet the Coast Guard Pollution requirements
and permit consolidation of tanker and. barge operations in loading,
issuing, and handling of bulk fuel, fuel oil, and oily wastes.
At the Naval Air Station, Memphis the dispensary and dental clinic
project will include space for five holding beds, twenty-nine dental
operating rooms and six oral hygiene treatment rooms.
The committee denied the following projects:
Amount
Installation and project (thousands) Reason
Naval Training Center, Orlando, Fla.: Bachelor enlisted quarters ------------------ $4,140 Deferred.
Naval Hospital, Memphis, Tenn.: Hospital improvements (electrical)_______________ 1, 888 Low priority.
The committee added the following projects:
Amount
Installation and project (thousands) Reason
Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory, Panama City, Fla.: Riverin : test facility and land $620 See remarks below.
acquisition.
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Fla.: Land acquisition --__--____________________ 1, 500 Do.
The Riverine Test Facility and Land Acquisition project was added
to provide the Navy with a permanent capability in a river delta
environment to develop Marine Corps techniques in swimmer defense,
ii unieatio as, position reporting and to develop other tactical
doctrines peculiar to the riverine environment.
The Land Acquisition project was added to provide Navy control
of acreage lying within high intensity aircraft noise zones on which
construction of residential units and a shopping center is planned.
'l'!>e project was authorized under the Naval Air Station, Pensacola.
Installation total of Title Il., but the authorization for appropriations
in Title VI, Section 602 was reduced by $1,500,000, since appropria-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
27
tions are available from the $2,400,000 appropriated last year for the
land acquisition project at the Naval Air Station at Jacksonville,
Florida. This land acquisition at Jacksonville will be accomplished
by an exchange of lands, therefore the appropriations are not required.
EIGHTH NAVAL DISTRICT
For the Eighth Naval District, the committee approved $6,338,000
for 4 projects at three Naval installations.
At the Naval Support Activity, New Orleans, the bachelor officers
quarters project will accommodate 99 men. Presently this activity does
not have any bachelor officers quarters. Also approved was a steam
plant and electrical improvements project which will provide adequate
heating and electrical utilities for present and future needs of the
activity.
At the Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas, a boiler replace-
ment project will replace existing steam generating equipment dating
back to 1941 that is subject to unpredictable shutdowns.
The runway restoration project at the Naval Air Station, Kings-
ville, Texas will restore runways 1-19 and 13-31 outlying landing
field, Orange Grove which are required for training naval aviators
in T2-C basic jet and TA-4 advanced jet aircraft.
All of the projects requested in this district were approved.
NINTH NAVAL DISTRICT
The committee approved for this district $10,164,000 for three
projects at one naval installation in the State of Illinois.
The significant project approved was the Engineman's School at
the Naval Training Center (Service School Command) Great Lakes.
The Engineman's School will replace existing 30 year old buildings
which are poorly organized, poorly lighted and ventilated and a
potential fire hazard.
The committee denied the following project:
Installation and project Amount
(thousands) Reason
Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Ill.: Bachelor enlisted quarters_______________ $2, 468 See remarks below.
This project was withdrawn by the Navy under the program change
of June 12, 1974. The reason given by the Navy was that a change
in training curriculum for the hospital corpsmen has reduced the need
for bachelor housing at the Naval Hospital Corps School. The number
of corpsmen to be trained will not be changed, only the concentration
of trainees at Great Lakes at a given time.
ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
For this district, the committee approved $84,849,000 for 31 projects
at 10 naval installations in the State of California.
The significant projects approved in this district are discussed in
the following paragraphs.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
At the Naval Regional Medical Center, Canip Pendleton, the 11os-
pital support facilities project was approved to provide a medical
warehouse building, public works and automotive rnainteuance shops
and an ambulance garage; a dispensary alteration and addition project
will expand critically needed space for the Del Mar clinic. area; dis-
pensary and dental clinic projects for the Edson Range area, the Las
Pulgas area and the San ',Altt.teo area; it dispensary project will pro-
vide medical and dental care for respective areas at the Headquarters,
area and will include Industrial health Services; and a dental clinic
for the San Onofre area.
At the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, the Laser Systems Re-
search and Development Laboratory project was approved. The
project will provide space to concentrate and integrate the center's
geographically dispersed research and development effort in laser
weapons systems.
The dispensary and dental clinic project will provide a facility with a
15 bed capacity in the dispensary and 4 dental operating rooms.
At the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, the Pier "E" Conversion (1st
Increment) project was approved. This project will upgrade a berthing
pier to full industrial capability with necessary utilities and weight
handling capacities. This project is part of the shipyard modernization
program.
At the Naval Air Station, Miramar the aircraft maintenance hangar
project was approved. The project will provide a maintenance hangar
in direct support of the E-2B squadrons recently assigned to the
station.
'hhe aircraft maintenance hangar project, was the most significant
project approved at the Naval Air Station, North Island. This project
will provide a maintenance hangar for the fixed-wing ASW aircraft.
The electronics development and testing laboratory (2d Increment)
project at San Diego was approved. The project will provide a cafeteria
and an engineering support wing with a roof structure designed for
installation of real or mock-up radio frequency equipment.
At the Naval Regional Medical Center, San Diego, the major
projects approved were the dental clinic and school project which was
designed to accommodate 590 students, the dispensary and dental
clinic project to care for 19,850 active duty personnel, and the Land
Acquisition-'Murphy Canyon project which will acquire land for
future construction of a new hospital at Murphy Canyon Heights.
A berthing pier project was approved at the Navy Submarine Sup-
port Facility, San Diego, This project will provide needed pier space for
2 submarine tenders and submarir,es, and for an auxiliary repair dry
(lock used for minor repairs to the attack aircraft.
The committee denied the following projects:
Amount
installation and project (thousands) Reason
Naval Air Station, Miramar, Calif.: Hangar improvements ------- _______._. '6418 Low priority.
Naval Air Station, North Island, Calif.: Engine parts coating facility--___-- 893 Deferred.
Naval Training Center, Bachelor enlisted quarters San Diego, Calif ----- 8, 657 Do.
Total ------- - --------------- - - 9,968
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
29
TWELFTH NAVAL DISTRICT
For this district the committee approved $2,048,000 for 3 projects
at 3 naval installations in the State of California.
The significant project approved was the Avionics Building Envi-
ronmental Control at the Naval Air Rework Facility, Alameda, CA.
This project will provide environmental control in the avionics rework
area that is essential to proper functioning of new and automated
test equipment used for accurate rework of sensitive aircraft naviga-
tion and communications equipment.
The committee denied the following projects:
Installation and project Amount
(thousands) Reason
Naval Supply Center, Oakland, Calif.: Wharf utilities_____________ $1, 396 Deferred.
Naval Communication Station, Stockton, Calif.: Domestic water supply------------- 1,102 Do.
Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Calif.: Engineering/management building --- 2,301 Low priority.
Total---------------------------------------------------------------- 4,799
THIRTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
In this district, the committee approved $102,199,000 for 5 projects
at 4 naval installations in the States of Alaska and Washiftgton.
The significant projects are discussed in the paragraphs below.
At the Naval Station, Adak, Alaska the committee approved a
runway and taxiway overlay project. This project will provide asphal-
tic concrete overlays and runway upgrading necessary to sustain
the P-3 ASW patrol and other assigned aircraft.
At the Trident support site (Phase II), Bangor, Wash.. the com-
mittee approved the majority of the request to provide second
phase facilities for a complete refit facility for the Trident system
which will maintain and improve the Nation's key strategic deterrent
capability to meet the projected threat in the 1980's.
The committee denied the following projects:
Installation and project Amount
(thousands) Reason
Naval Station, Adak, Alaska:
Weapons security improvements_____________________________________ __ $581 Deferred.
Power plant addition -------------------------------------------------- 2, 511 Do.
Trident Support Site, Bangor, Wash.: Trident support (phase I I)________________ 8,808 Reduction.
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Wash.: Operational storage building ---------- 402 Low priority.
The authorized amount for the Trident Support Project has been
reduced by $8,808,000. The reduction is a general reduction since the
committee does not believe the Navy will be able to place under con-
tract this year all of the facilities included under the project. The Navy
may proceed with any of the facilities shown on the project document
within the authorized amount of $95,000,000.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
30
FOURTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
The committee approved for this district $5,656,000 for 4 projects at
3 naval installations in the State of Hawaii. The machine shop modern-
ization project at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard was the major
project approved. This project is a consolidation, rearrangement and
modernization of the machine shop and central tool shop.
The committee denied the following projects:
Amount
Installation and project (thousands) Reason
Commander in Chief, Pacific, Oahu, H.waii, Intelligence: lntelliOence Center Pacific. $2, 700 Deferred.
Naval Communication Station, Honolulu, Wahiawa, Hawaii: Satellite communica- 971 Do.
Lions terminal. - - _
Total--------- __-------------------------------- ---------- 3,671
Under the program change of June 12, 1974, the Navy requested the
addition of the Intelligence Center Pacific project for the Commander
in Chief, Pacific, Oahu. The need for this project is recognized, but the
committee believes the deferral of the project for a year will not
seriously degrade intelligence gathering operations.
MARINE CORPS
The committee approved $40,810,000 for 22 projects at 10 Marine
Corps installations in the States of Virginia, North Carolina, Arizona,
and California. Again this year the Marine Corps emphasized the
correction of deficiencies in enlis-.ed quarters and other personnel
support facilities.
Bachelor Enlisted Quarters projects were approved for the Marine
Corps Development and Education Command, Quantico, Virginia; the
Courthouse Bay area, the Hadnot Point area, and the French Creek
area of Camp Lejeune, North Caiolina; and for the IIorno area, the
Pulgas area, and the Headquarters area of Camp Pendleton, California.
Other projects of significance were the Marine Corps Historical
Center which will be available for practical study, maintenance of
archives, records, and personal papers and will provide space for a
historical library; and the electrical distribution system improvements
projects at Cherry Point, N.C. and Lejeune, N.C.
The committee approved all of the projects requested but reduced
the authorized amount of the potable water system project at the
Marine Corps Supply Center, Barstow, CA by $433,000. The author-
ized amount for the project will be $724,000. This reduction was
requested under the program change of June 12, 1974. The Marine
Corps advised that they would be able to use a commercial source for
obtaining water that will result in a capitol savings of $433,000 and an
annual savings of $48,000.
(Inside the United States)
The committee approved $54,100,000 for two projects located
inside the United States.
Approved for air pollution abatement $9,849,000 for L4 Naval
`111( l Marine Corps installations. At four installations, the facilities
ApproveFor Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
31
will improve air emissions by installing collection systems, paint spray
enclosures and other pollution control equipment and at five installa-
tions, the facilities will improve vapor collection and control systems
to bring the systems into compliance with air quality standards.
For water pollution abatement $44,251,000 was approved for 24
Naval and Marine Corps installations. At eight installations, the
sewage treatment facilities will improve the level of treatment at the
plants to a degree that enables the effluents to meet all water quality
requirements. At nine installations, the ship waste water collection
facilities will provide shore facilities for collection of ship generated
wastes, and at three installations, the oily waste collection and rec-
lamation facilities will help a navy-wide program which is underway
to collect, treat, recycle or properly dispose of all waste oils and oily
wastes.
The requested amounts were approved for the air and water
pollution abatement projects.
For this district, the committee approved $5,159,000 for 5 projects
at three naval installations.
The major project approved was a communications operations
building at the Naval Telecommunications Center, Roosevelt Roads.
The project is required to permit relocation of remaining communi-
cation facilities from Ponce, Puerto Rico to Roosevelt Roads.
The committee approved all of the projects requested.
The committee approved the $800,000 requested for a bachelor
enlisted quarters project at the Naval Support Activity, Rodman,
Canal Zone. The project will provide a new 72 man BEQ located at
Rodman Station proper and also modernization of an existing building
with space for 22 men at the Headquarters Annex.
The committee approved $4,183,000 in the Atlantic Ocean area
for 3 projects at two naval installations in Bermuda and Keflavik,
Iceland.
The most significant projects approved were a BEQ which was
designed to accommodate 117 men at the Naval Air Station, Bermuda,
and at the Naval Station Keflavik, Iceland an entrance to airport
terminal which will provide acceptable, secure, unmanned customs,
controlled access to the Iceland International Airport without Gov-
ernment of Iceland interference.
The committee denied the following projects:
Amount
Installation and project (thousands) Reason
Naval Station, Keflavik, Iceland:
EM dining facility modernization__________________________________________ $1,097 Deferred.
Bachelor enlisted quarters with mess modernization and addition_ 779 Do.
Total--------------------------------------------------------------- 1,876
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
32
N;UROPEAN AREA
For the European area, the committee approved $1,759,000 for
two projects at two naval installations in Scotland.
The major approved project will provide new club facilities for
enlisted personnel, E-6 and below at the Naval Activities Detach-
ment, Holy Loch, Scotland.
The committee denied the following project:
Amount
Installations and project (thousands) Reason
The committee added the expansion of facilities project in the
amount of $29,000,000 for the Naval Communication Facility, Diego
Garcia, Chagos Archipelago.
The committee believes it is important in carrying out national
policy and is in our interest for the U.S. Navy, from time to time, to
have a greater presence in the Indian Ocean. The logistics support
Facilities to be provided by this project will shorten the logistic tail
For various task groups that periodically deploy to the Indian Ocean,
and reduce the logistic support costs. The committee believes in the
freedom of the seas and that these logistic support facilities are
important assets for periodic deployments to the Indian Ocean, which
should not be abandoned. Otherwise, we may lose political and diplo-
matic influence by default.
In the Pacific Ocean area, the ccmmittee approved $9,333,000 for
8 projects at 5 naval installations. A. description of the major projects
approved follows.
At the Navy Public Works Center, Guam, a utilities system expan-
sion project was approved to provide telephone services in support of
510 units in the fiscal year 1974 family housing program and increase
electric power reliability and compatibility with the Government of
Guam distribution system.
Three projects were approved for the Naval Air Station, ("ubi
Point. The construction associated with the. airfield improvements
project will strengthen a weakened portion o? the runway, extend
taxiways and provide additional parking apron. The bachelor enlisted
quarters and bachelor officers quarters projects will provide spaces
for 192 and 60 men, respectively. At the Naval Station, Subic Bay,
the bachelor enlisted quarters project will provide space for 283 men
and the dependent school expansion and gym project will furnish the
facilities needed to provide the dependents of military personnel an
education that meets continental U S. standards.
The committee denied the following projects:
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
33
Amount
Installation and project (thousands) Reason
Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam: Enlisted mens club____________ _ $728 Low priority.
Naval Communication Station, Finegagan, Guam: Satellite communication terminal 950 Deferred.
addition.
Novul Ship Repair Facility, Gasm: Sandblast and paint facility-------------------- 1,782 Do.
Naval Hospital Fleet Activities, Yokosuka: Patient recreation building______________ 360 Low priority.
Naval Hospital, Subic Bay: Dispensary and dental clinic---- 3,315 Do.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
The committee approved $1,059,000 for one air pollution abatement
project located outside the United States.
The power plant air emission control improvement item will provide
new stacks that are sufficient in height to disperse smoke and particu-
lates. The project is at the Public Works Center, Guam.
The committee approved $4,038,000 for two water pollution abate-
ment facilities outside the United States. The sewage treatment plant
will provide a collection line from the submarine tender to the plant
at the Naval Detachment, Holy Loch, Scotland and the ship waste
collection ashore item will provide the shore facilities for collection
of ship generated wastes at the Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads.
This year the Navy requested six amendments with a total value of
$17,812,000. Three of these amendments are related to the energy
crisis and the national policy to provide a coal burning capability for
boilers with an output greater than 50 million British Thermal Units
per hour or the requirement to design and construct to burn coal
boilers and hot water generators with an output greater than 100
million British Thermal Units per hour. A summary of the amend-
ments requested follows:
INSTALLATION AMOUNTS
In thousands of dollars]
Authori-
zation Amendment
Authori-
zation
Public Law 90408 (fiscal year 1969) sec. 201: Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md.,
land fill and site improvements (project cost from 2,000to4,391)1-___--_____
2,000
2,391
4,391
Public Law 91-511 (fiscal year 1971) sec. 201: Naval Air Rework Facility, Jack-
sonville, Fla., aircraft stripping and corrosion treatment shop (project cost
from 2,481to3,146)'---------------------------------------------------
3,869
665
4,534
Public Law 92-545 (fiscal year 1973) sec. 201: Navy Public Works Center, Nor-
folk, Va., steam plant expansion (projactcost from 2,326 to 6,026) s
3,319
3,700
7,019
Public Law 93-166 (fiscal year 1974) sec. 201:
Naval Home, Gulfport, Miss., new naval home (project cost from 9,444 to
14,163)1--------------------------------------------------------
9,444
4,719
14,163
Naval Air Station, Alameda, Calif., pier utilities (project cost from 3,827 to
7,756)1------------------------------------------------------
3,827
3,929
7,756
Marine Corps Supply Center, Barstow, Calif., heating plant and distribution
system (project costfrom2,826to5,234)5-----------------------------
3,802
2,408
6,210
1 Construction revision.
2 New safety standards.
a Revision to burn coal.
r Inflation.
1 Revision for coal burning capability.
H.R. 1244 O-3
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
At the Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md., the amendment for the
landfill and site improvements project is required to provide the
authority needed for construction to stabilize the landfill and provide
a protecting seawall, sheet piling bulkhead, road and parking area.
The stabilization of the landfill and protecting seawall and bulkhead
are required to prevent further and perhaps serious damage to the
library authorized in fiscal year 1970.
At the Naval Rework Facility, Jacksonville, Fla., the amendment
for the aircraft stripping and corrosion treatment facility project
is required to meet new occupational safety health standards and cor-
rect deficiencies in the large curtain dividers used to isolate several
concurrent operations.
The amendment for the New Naval Home project at Gulfport,
Miss., is required because the volume and cost of construction in the
New Orleans-Baton Rouge corridor has increased significantly. The
Navy advised that very competitive bids were received for the major
construction contract for the Naval Home, but the bids exceeded by
25 percent the amount authorized. The committee concurred with the
1\Tavy's proceeding with the major cont.-act by temporarily waiving
supervision, inspection and overhead costs, and reta::ning a minimum
contingency. The amendment of $4,719,000 will restore the supervi-
sion inspection and overhead costs and permit the Navy to proceed
with all of the facilities originally authorized for the Naval Home.
The committee approved all the amendments requested above and
added the following amendment(s) :
Installation/location/project
Author-
ization
Amend-
ment
Amended
author-
ization
Public Law92-545 (fiscal year 1973) sec. 201: Naval Hospital, New Orleans, La.,
hospitalr ------------------------------------------------------------
11,680
2,929
14,609
Public Law 93-166 (fiscal year 1974) sec. 201: Naval Hospital, New Orleans, La.,
nursing bed addition' --------------------
3,386
771
4, 157
total ----------------.. ------------------------------------------------- 3,700
------------
l'or the Naval Hospital, New Orleans the hospital project and
nursing bed addition project amendments are required because current
bidding experience in the New Orleans area show 'ghat construction
costs have accelerated at a greater rate than was anticipated. It is
unlikely that these projects can be constructed within current author-
ization and appropriations. Contracts have been awarded for the
demolition and foundation work.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
35
SUMMARY OF NAVY PROGRAM
[A summary of the actions taken, by project, are tabulated below]
Amount
(thousands)
1st Naval District: Naval Education and Training Sims Hall alteration____________________________ -$971
Center, Newport, R.I. Public works administration building_ -600
3rd Naval District: Naval Submarine Base, New Floating drydock mooring facility________________ -4,000
London, Conn.
4th Naval District: Naval Ships Parts Control Center, Conversion to administration area_______________
Mechanicsburg, Pa.
Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C---- Air-conditioning plant (4th increment) -----------
Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md--------------- Luce Hall addition and modernization ----------
Uniformed University of the Health Sciences -------_
5th Naval District:
Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Va------- Command control and administration building_____
Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Va---------------- Operational flight training facility ----------------
6th Naval District:
-2,336
-3,172
-6,450
-2,030
-571
Naval Training Center, Orlando, Fla ----------- Bachelor enlisted quarters______________________
Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory, Panama Riverine test facility and land acquisition---------
City, Fla.
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Fla______________ Land acquisition (authorization only-not in-
cluded in grand total of bill).
Naval Hospital, Memphis, Tenn--------------- Hospital improvements (electrical)_______________
9th Naval District: Naval Training Center, Great Bachelor enlisted quarters----------------------
Lakes, Ill.
11th Naval District:
Naval Air Station, North Island, Calif---------- Engine parts coating facility _____________
Naval Air Station, Miramar, Calif------------- Hangar Improvements (utilities) ----------------
Naval Training Center, San Diego,Calif.(Service Bachelor enlisted quarters_____________________
School Command).
12th Naval District:
-4,140
+620
1 +1,500
-1,888
2 -2,468
-893
-418
-8,657
Naval Supply Center, Oakland, Calif----------- Wharf utilities________________________________
-1,396
Naval Communication Station, Stockton, Calif... Domestic water supply_________________________
-1,102
Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Calif----- Engineering/management building (1st increment).
-2,301
13th Naval District: Naval Station, Adaka, Alaska___ Weapons security improvements----------------
-581
Powerplantaddition ---------------------------
-2,511
Trident Support Site, Bangor, Wash--------------- Trident support (phase 11) ----------------------
s-8,808
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Wash ----------- Operational storage building____________________
-402
14th Naval District:
Commander in chief, Pacific, Oahu, Hawaii_____ Intelligence center, Pacific______________________
4(2, 700)
Naval Communication Station, Honolulu, Wah- Satellite communications terminal______________
-971
iawa, Hawaii.
11th Naval District: Marine Corps Supply Center, Potable water system- _______________
8-433
Barstow, Calif.
Atlantic Ocean area: Naval Station, Keflavik, Enlisted men's dining facility modernization------
-1,097
Iceland.
tion and addition.
European area: Naval Air Facility, Sigonella, Sicily, Swimming pool--------------------------------
Italy.
Indian Ocean area: Naval Communications Facility, Expansion of facilities__________________________
Diego Garcia, Chagos Archipelago.
Pacific Ocean area:
Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam___ --------------- Enlisted men's club___________________________
-728
Naval Communication Station, Finegagan. Guam- Satellite Communication Terminal addition ---___
-950
Naval Ship Repair Facility, Guam-------------- Sandblast and paint facility--_ ---------------------
-1,782
Naval Hospital, fleet activities, Yokosuka. Japan- Patient recreation building______________________
-360
Naval Hospital, Subic Bay_ Dispensary and dental clinic--------------------
-3,315
Net reductions-New authorization --------------------------------------------------------
1
-20,301
General appropriations reduction________________________________________________________________
1 -1,500
Total reductions------------------------------------------------------------------------
-21,801
Amendments:
Naval Hospital, New Orleans, La.-Hospital (fiscal year. 1973 ---------------------------
I Added for authorization only under title II-excluded from total authorized for appropriations under title VI by
general appropriations reduction.
2 Withdrawn by Navy under program change of June 12, 1974.
3 Reduced by $8,808,000 to a new project amount of $95,000,000.
4 Added by Navy under program change of June 12, 1974. Denied by committee. (Non-add.)
6 Reduced by $433,000 under program change of June 12, 1974, to a new project amount of $724,000.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
:36
TITLE III-AIR FORCE
The Air Force requested $468,276,000 under Title III of the bill
distributed as follows:
Air Force
request
Committee
approved
Inside the United States __________________________ _------
-------------
$1582,042,000
$317,203,000
Outside the United States ---- _ __ _________________ ---------
-------------
78,134,000
75,924,000
Classified program. -___________________--___________________-------------
8,100,000
8,100,000
Grand total---------- _____________ -------
!68,276,000
401,227,000
Deficiency authorization ---__ _____..____________-_
14,959,000
17,655,000
Emergency construction__________________________________________________
10,000,000
10,000,000
All projects for which new authorization is being requested were
included in the Fiscal Year 1975 appropriation request for Military
Construction except for part of a land acquisition authorization re-
quest at Eglin AFB, Florida. This request in the amount of $382,000
requires an appropriation of only $106,000 and the balance of the
authorization will be used in a land exchange program with private
parties. '!.'his program contains the authorization requests for new
facilities required to meet the force and deployment goals presented
to the Congress in the Air Force Chief of Staff's Posture Statement.
The committee gave careful consideration to all projects and a sum-
mary of authorizations requested and approved follows:
Air Force
request
Committee
approval
Inside the United States:
Aerospace Defense Command --------- _-------------------- .-------------- ___ $9,660
$8,201
Air Force Communications Service______________________ ________________ 805
805
Air Force Logistics Command__________ _____ __---------- ___ -_ 69,949
45,969
Air Force Systems Command ------------------------------
------------ 68,243
61,619
Air Training Command ------------------------------------
------ ------- - 44,472
37,626
Air University ----------------------------------------
--------------- .._. 3,758
3,758
AlaskanAirCommand____-------------------------------
--------- --- __. 15,552
15,272
Headquarters Command, USAF ------------------- _--------
------------------- 17,854
9,084
Military Airlift Command_______-------------------------- _____________ -_ 19,232
16,032
Pacific Air Forces -------------------------------------------------------- --- 14,594
10,959
StrategicAirCommand________________-------------------------------- 44,712
44,712
Tactical Air Command____________________________ ----- 33,203
31,158
Pollution abatement---- _ ____-__________----________.._.----------------- 22,856
22,856
Special facilities_____ 17,152
9,152
Aerospace Corp ---------------------------------------------- 0
r (9,000)
Total insidetheUnitedStates------------------- ----- __--________________. 382,042
317,203
Outside the United States:
Aerospace Defense Command -------- ----------- _____________________ 138
138
Pacific Air Forces ------------------------------------------------------------- 7,022
4,812
U.S. Air Force:
In Europe --------------- -------------------------------------- -- 64,245
64,245
Security service_____________________ ------ __-------------- __- 4,135
4,135
Pollution abatement ____ ----- _------------ ___ _____ _-___---____ 595
595
Special facilities------- ---- __-.------------ __ _ 1,999
1,999
Total outside the United States _______________ _____ __-__ ________ /8,134
75,924
Classified (sec. 302): various worldwide (total)------ .. -__ -- --------- 8,100
8,100
Grand total ---- _---- _ __ -------- ------------- _ __ 468,276
401,221
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
37
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND (INSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The primary mission of the Aerospace Defense Command (ADC)
is to discharge Air Force responsibilities for the defense of the United
States against aerospace attack. This program requests $9,660,000
for eleven projects in support of ADC host responsibilities at two Air
Force locations. Additionally, Sections 302 and Special Facilities
(Inside the United States) of the program includes $5,000,000 for
radar support facilities at various world-wide installations. The total
ADC construction program is $14,660,000.
In considering the individual projects comprising the $14,660,000
program for the Aerospace Defense Command, the committee de-
termined that two projects for a total of $1,459,000 were not of suffi-
cient urgency to warrant current authorization. Accordingly projects
were deferred as follows:
Base Project Amount
(thousands)
Peterson Field, Colo----------------------------- Base photo laboratory----_ -- $563
-------------------
Officers quarters ----------------------------- 898
Total reduction
1,459
AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
The mission of the Air Force Communications Service (AFCS) is
to engineer, program, provide, install, operate, maintain, and manage
communications electronics for the Air Force and for other agencies
as directed by the Chief of Staff, USAF.
The construction requested is one project for $805,000 at Richards-
Gebaur Air Force Base, to provide an aircraft flight control facility.
Additionally, one project is listed in the Special Facilities Section
(inside the United States) for $234,000 and three projects in Special
Facilities (outside the United States) for $1,006,000. Total con-
struction for Air Force Communication Service is $2,459,000.
The program was approved as submitted.
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND
The mission of the Air Force Logistics Command is to provide an
adequate and efficient system of procurement, production, surveil-
lance, maintenance, and supply for the United States Air Force
and train specialized units for accomplishment of logistics functions
in overseas areas and theaters. This program contains a request for
$69,949,000 which provides facilities at seven locations where Air
Force Logistics Command is the host command. Of this amount,
$8,651,000 is for items to support the Air Force Systems Command
at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and a $3,500,000 project
at Wright-Patterson for the Air Force Institute of Technology, Air
University. Additionally, one project for $674,000 in support of Air
Force Logistics Command is located at Davis-Monthan Air Force
Base. The total construction program in the United States in support
of the Air Force Logistics Command is $58,472,000.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
38
In the committee's judgment, six projects in the amount of $23,980
are not of sufficient urgency to warrant current authorization. Ac-
cordingly, projects are deferred as follows:
Amount
(thousands)
Kelly AFB, Tex --------------------------------- Log. mati. star. facility --------- ----------------
k
$7,071
8
s----------------------------
Water storage tan
g g5
McClellan AFB, Calif----------------------------- Log. mat!. procossmgfac------- __-_______------
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ----- _ AcademicfacililY -----------------------------
Human eng.lab ------------- ------------------
3,500
2,400
5
Systems magm fac-----------------------------
1,71
-
---
Total reduction --------- ---------- _---------- ---- - - .
23,980
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
The next, major command to be considered is the Air Force Systems
Command whose mission is to advance aerospace technology, adopt
it into operational aerospace systems, and acquire qualitatively
superior aerospace systems and material needed to accomplish the Air
Force mission.
The construction program at bases with Air Force Systems Com-
mand as host, amounts to $68,243,000. Of this amount, $66,763,000 is
for items to support the Air Force Systems Command mission and
$1,480,000 is in support of the Tactical Air Command on Eglin
Auxiliary Airfield Number 9.
Presentations of the Air Force Logistics Command, the Tactical Air
Command, and the Special Projects program include $13,589,000 for
the Air Force Systems Command. The total construction program in
the United States in support of the Air Force Systems Command is
$80,352,000.
fn considering the individual projects proposed for the Air Force
Systems Command, the committee determined that four items could
be deferred to a future program as follows:
Amount
Base Project (thousands)
Human resources lab -------- - --------- $3,100
Brooks AFB----------- ------------ Elect power pit and systems-_ - --------------- 1, 238
Edwards AFB, Calif____----- ---- ----- Fuel storage and dormitory-------------- 449
--- 1,837
---------- ---------- - ___- __ Airme Y ------------ ----- ----- ---
Eglin AFB, On ---------------------------------
6,524
Total reduction ------------------------- - --- -- ---
AIR TRAINING COMMAND
The mission of the Air Training Command is to provide flying
training leading to an aeronautical rating; air creNx- training; basic and
advanced technical training leading to an Air Force specialty; basic
military training; mobile training; and such other training as may be
directed by the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force.
Construction projects totaling $44,472,000 are requested by this
program for eleven bases where Air Training Command is host.
In reviewing the program for the Air Training Command, the com-
mittee recognized that the Air Force had been unable to include a
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
project for an urgently needed airmen dormitory at Chanute Air
Force Base, Illinois, due to budgetary restrictions. The committee
considers this to be an urgent current requirement and has therefore
added $6,267,000 in authorization to the Air Force Title. The com-
mittee also considered that three other projects in the command pro-
gram could be deferred to a future year without adverse impact.
The projects so deferred are :
Amount
(thousands)
Mather AFB, Calif------------------------------- Commissary --------- -------------------- -__-_ $3,000
Vance AFB, Okla -------------------------------- Simulator training fac------------------------ -_ 4,800
Williams AFB, Ariz ----------------------------------- do------------------------------------- _- 5,313
Project added: Chanute AFB, III__________________ Airmen dormitory ---- _------------------------ 6,267
Net reduction------- --------------------------------------------------------------- 6,846
The Air University (AU) is located on Maxwell Air Force Base at
Montgomery, Alabama. Its mission is to prepare officers for command
and staff duties of Air Force units. The assigned activities include
Headquarters Air University, Air War College, Air Command and
Staff College, Squadron Officers School and a Tactical Airlift Group
(Reserve).
This program contains a request for $3,758,000 for construction in
support of the Air University mission.
The program was approved as submitted.
The Alaskan Air Command provides combat ready forces, defense
weapons systems, aircraft control and warning elements, and air
defense forces within Alaska for employment under the operational
control of Command, Alaska NORAD/CONAD region. It also pro-
vides logistical support for the Strategic Air Command, the Military
Airlift Command, the Command of the Alaskan Sea Frontier and the
United States Army. This program provides $15,552,000 at four
locations. One project for $310,000 is in support of Air Force Technical
Application Center at Eielson Air Force Base. The total construction
program for Alaskan Air Command is $15,242,000.
In reviewing the program for the Alaskan Air Command, the com-
mittee deferred one item as follows:
Amount
Base Project (thousands)
ShemyaAFB, Alaska ---------------------------- Water supply fac------------------- ---------- $280
HEADQUARTERS COMMAND-ZONE OF INTERIOR
The mission of the headquarters Command is to provide proficiency
flying, training, and support of the United States Air Force personnel
in the Washington, D.C. area. Specifically, this command provides
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
40
administrative and logistical support for units assigned directly to
Headquarters United States Air Force, for those Air Force units
stationed within the Washington area where inherent organizational
structure does not permit other support, and such other missions as
may be directed by the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force.
The construction program at bases where Headquarters Command
is host amounts to $17,854,000. Of this amount, $17,229,000 is for
items to support the Headquarters Command mission and $625,000
s in support of the Military Airlift Command.
Last year the committee authorized $13,500,000 for the special
aircraft support facility at Andrews AFB. This authorization was not
funded. Accordingly, the committee feels that the $8,770,000 requested
this year could safely be deferred until funding for last year's author-
ization is obtained. Therefore, a program deletion was made as follows:
Amount
Base Project (thousands)
Andrews AFB, Md----------- ------------ - - - - - - - Special acrft e:up facility ---------------- -- _ $8,770
MILITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND
The mission of the Military Airlift Command (MAC) is to main-
tain the military airlift system in the constant state of readiness
necessary for performance of all airlift tasks and emergency operations
assigned by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. MAC supervises and operates
the Air Weather Service, the Aerospace Audio Visual Service, the Air
Rescue and Recovery Service, an Aeromedical Evacuation System,
and Military Airlift Wings. This program involves 10 projects at four
locations where MAC is host and contains a request for $19,232,000 for
support of the MAC mission.
An additional $625,000 is included for the M-aitary Airlift Coin-
atand in the Headquarters Command program and $1)443,000 is in-
cluded for the Military Airlift Command in the Strategic Air Com-
mand program. The total construction program to support the Military
Airlift Command amounts to $21,300,000.
In considering the individual requirements in the $19,232,000 pro-
gram for the Military Airlift Command, the Committee determined
that one project could be deferred as follows:
Amount
Base Project (thousands)
Dover AFB, Del --------- ----- ------------- - Fuel supply facility--- --------------------- $3,200
PACIFIC AIR FORCES (INSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The mission of the Pacific Air Forces is to conduct, control, and
coordinate offensive and defensive air operations in accordance with
tasks assigned by the Commander-ir. Chief, Pacific Command. As a
major Air Command, it provides administrative and logistical support
for Air Force units in the Pacific Command's geographical area of
responsibility. The requested program for the Pacific Air Forces,
inside the United States totals $14,594,000 and is for Hickam Air
Force Base.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
44
PACIFIC AIR FORCES (OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The mission of the Pacific Air Forces is to conduct, control, and
coordinate offensive and defensive air operations in accordance with
tasks assigned by the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command. As a
major air command, it provides administrative and logistical support
for Air Force units in the Pacific Command geographical area of
responsibility. The program, to improve the combat readiness and
capabilities to support advanced aerospace and defensive systems for
the Pacific Air Forces Command outside the United States, totals
$7,022,000 and consists of Airmen dormitory construction and alter-
ation at three bases.
The committee determined that one project in the amount of
$2,210,000 was not of sufficient urgency to warrant approval. A
deferral was made as follows:
Project Amount
(thousands)
Kunsan AB, Korea_________________________ Airmen dormitory ----------------------------- $2,210
U.S. AIR FORCES IN EUROPE
The mission of the United States Air Force in Europe (USAFE) is
to conduct, control and coordinate, offensive and defensive air opera-
tions in accordance with tasks assigned by the Commander-in-Chief,
United States European Command. It also fulfills responsibilities
assigned by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in areas not included in either the
NATO or the United States Commanders-in-Chief, European area of
responsibility. This program contains a request for $64,245,000 for
facilities in support of USAFE missions. This amount includes $280,-
000 in support of the Air Force Communications Service (AFCS).
Additionally, Section 302 of the program includes $2,000,000 for
security improvements.
The program is approved.
U.S. AIR FORCE SECURITY SERVICE (OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The mission of the United States Air Force Security Service is to
provide communications security services. The total construction
program to support United States Air Force Security Service amounts
to $4,135,000 for two projects at San Vito Dei Normanni Air Station,
Italy.
The first project is add to and alter a Dependent School. The ex-
isting facilities provide less than 35 percent of the required space. All
existing classrooms are crowded beyond capacity and are widely
dispersed. The project will provide a facility to conduct a full educa-
tional program for 1,110 students in grades kindergarten through 12.
The second project is the construction of additional Water Supply
Facilities. With the addition of 150 family housing units to be con-
structed under the FY 73 Military Construction Program, the ex-
isting water supply system must be supplemented. The project will
provide additional water supply and storage tank to meet 25% in-
creased requirements.
The program is approved.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
other locations, where simulators are currently in operation, have
facilities inadequate to house the new equipment.
Three of the seven items in this program were determined by the
committee to be of insufficient urgency to warrant current authoriza-
tion. Project deferrals are as follows: Thousands
Radar support facility - - - - - - - - -- - - - ______--.__------------- - $1,200
Command control communication facility----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 800
Operational flight simulator facilities -------------------------------- 6, 000
Total reduction ------------- .------- ----- 8,000
AEROSPACE CORPORATION
The Aerospace Corporation is an Air Force-sponsored non-profit
corporation engaged primarily in scientific research and development
efforts for the Air Force, though about 11'% of its effort is now directed
towards contracts with states and local governments. Section 609 of
P.L. 89-188 requires that construction or acquisition of facilities for
the Aerospace Corporation be "authorized to the Air Force by the
Congress". The Aerospace Corporation Ras proposed that it construct
new facilities at El Segundo, California, in the amount of $9 mil-
lion, using the proceeds of the sale of its former building at San
Bernardino, California, and other corporate funds. The Air Force
proposed an amendment to Section 609 that would delete the require-
ment for authorization for facilities funded entirely from non-Govern-
ment sources and require for such facilities only that they be reported
to the Armed Services Committees of both houses under the procedures
of 10 U.S.C. 2662. That Section requires that certain real property
actions not take place until 30 days after they have been reported to
the committees.
The Committee feels that the Aerospace Corporation is so uniquely
and closely associated with the Air Force that Congressional control of
corporate acquisition and construction of facilities should be equiva-
lent to that for military facilities, regardless of the apparent source of
funding. It is not the Committee's intent that the authorized facilities
should be subject to the laws governing Federally owned or constructed
facilities.
The Committee has no objection to the specific proposal by the
Aerospace Corporation, as transmitted to the Committees by the
Secretary of the Air Force on December 7, 1973. Authorization for the
proposed work in the amount of $9 million is included in Title III
of the bill.
Amount
Base Project (thousands)
El Segundo, Calif ----------- -Adminfacility --------- - ------------ $9,000
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND (OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The Aerospace Defense Command .primary mission is to discharge
Air Force responsibilities for the defer..se of the United States against
an aerospace attack. Construction requested totals $138,000 for one
project at one location.
The ro ram was approved as submitted.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
Amount
Base Project (thousands)
Cannon AFB, N. Max ---------------------------- Recreation center ------------------------------ $832
George AFB6Calif-------------_--___----__- Aircraft moist shop ------------------------ 948
MacDilI AFB, Fla-------------------------------- Aircrew target study --------------------------- 265
Total reduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,045
POLLUTION ABATEMENT-(INSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The pollution abatement program amounts to $22,856,000 at various
locations in the United States, of which $9,156,000 is for air pollution
abatement with the remainder of $13,700,000 for water pollution
abatement.
The air pollution abatement program, consisting of a fire training
facility, modification of a central heating plant and alteration of fuel
storage facilities to control vapor emission, is required to comply
with federal, state, and local air pollution regulations at 9 Air Force
installations in the United States.
The water pollution abatement program at 19 Air Force installations
in the United States includes provisions for water pollution abatement
through the construction of collection and treatment facilities for
industrial and sanitary wastes and upgrading of existing facilities.
The program is required to comply with federal, state, and local
water pollution regulations.
The program was approved as submitted.
The Special Facilities Program amounts to $17,152,000 at various
locations in the Zone of Interior.
The first item provides for construction of radar tower foundations
and associated utilities and alteration of two existing facilities to
accommodate height finder radars at five locations. These facilities
will provide collocation of height finder and FAA radar systems.
The second item is construction of one building and alteration of
five others in support of an intra-command communications network.
Existing inadequate and undersized facilities cannot properly house
now equipment.
The third item will provide concrete slabs for mobile equipment
and concrete antenna pedestals in support of the global positioning
satellite system. There are no existing facilities available to provide
adequate support of this system.
The fourth item provides for construction of new satellite communi-
cations facilities including antenna and radomo foundations for two
new antennas with technical equipment buildings. Increased and
complex communications traffic cannot be supported with existing
equipment and facilities.
The fifth item is for facilities in support of the Air Force Satellite
Communications System.
The sixth item is for construction of an addition to an Aerospace
Data Facility. Existing facilities cannot accommodate the new
computer scheduled for delivery in support of this mission.
The seventh item is for construction of facilities to house new flight
simulators. Many locations have no existing facilities available;
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
Of the amount submitted, the committee considered that two
projects were not of sufficient urgency to warrant current author-
ization. Accordingly, project deferrals were made as follows:
Base Project
Amount
(thousands)
Hickam AFB, Hawaii---------------_-------------------------- Aircraft fuel systems maintenance fecility--------
$919
Officers quartere------------ - ---------------
2,716
Total reduction --------------------------------------- - ----------- - -_ -___
3,63.?i
The mission of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) is to organize,
train, equip, administer, prepare and maintain it bomber and tanker
force in a state of readiness capable of conducting intensive and
conclusive worldwide aerial bombardment against enemies of the
United States.
This program requests $44,712,000 for construction of facilities at
15 bases where the Strategic Air Command is the host command. Of
this amount, $40,745,000 is for items to support the Strategic Air
Command mission; the balance of $3,967,000 consists of $674,000 in
support of AFLC, $1,443,000 in support of MAC and $1,850,000 in
support of the Air Force Security Service. Additionally, one project
is listed under Special Facilities for $800,000. Total construction for
Strategic Air Command is $41,545,000.
The program was approved as submitted.
The Tactical Air Command participates in tactical air operations
employing air operations and air power independently, or in co-
ordination with ground or Naval forces, to gain and maintain air
superiority; to prevent movement of anemy forces; to seek out and
destroy these forces and their supporting installations; and to assist
ground or Naval forces in obtaining their immediate operational
objectives.
The mission of this command is to organize, equip, train, administer,
and operate the assigned or attached forces and participate in prompt
and sustained tactical air operations. The Commander, Tactical Air
('ommand, is charged with two missions. He is a major air commander
under the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, and concurrently
is a component commander under the Commander-in-Chief, United
States Readiness Command (REDCOM).
The construction program at bases where the Tactical Air Command
is host amount,, to $33,203,000 for both operational and support type
facilities. Of this amount $32,183,000 is for items to support the Tacti-
cal Air Command mission and $1,020,000 is in support of the Air
Force Systems Command mission. An additional $1,480,000 for
't'actical Air Command is included in the program of the Air Force
Systems Command. The grand total construction program to support
'T'actical Air Command amounts to $33,663,000.
Of the amount submitted, the committee has determined that proj-
ects in the amount of $2,045,000 main be deferred to a later program-
ining cycle. The projects to be deferred are:
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
POLLUTION ABATEMENT (OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The overseas pollution abatement program amounts to $595,000
for a water pollution abatement project at Misawa Air Base, Japan.
The project is for a sewage collection, treatment, and disposal
system.
The program was approved as submitted.
SPECIAL FACILITIES (OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The Special Facilities (Outside the United States) program includes
five items for a total of $1,999,000.
The first item is for construction and expansion of facilities to ac-
commodate defense communications technical control functions at
six locations. The function is currently housed in inadequate and
poorly configured space, making effective and efficient accomplish-
ment extremely difficult.
The second item is for alteration of a satellite control facility, an-
tenna and radome foundation to accept an additional antenna. In-
creased volume and complexity of communications to and from
military satellites necessitates expansion of current capabilities.
The third item is for facilities in support of the Air Force Satellite
Communications System.
The fourth item provides construction of two new communications
facilities and alteration of twelve others. Currently the microwave
communications system uses unreliable and obsolete equipment. Dis-
continuance of production of replacement parts will make maintenance
impossible, thus forcing replacement of equipment, which will result
in additional facility requirements.
The fifth item provides construction at two locations to house solar
optical telescopes and associated functions. Existing facilities are in-
capable of housing the new observation and data processing
equipment.
The program was approved as submitted.
Section 302 of the military construction program includes three
items for a total of $8,100,000.
The first item is for construction of various facilities including an
operational apron and fuel and munitions storage at Diego Garcia
Naval Installation, Indian Ocean. Existing accommodations cannot
support the aircraft scheduled for operation at this location.
The second item is for construction associated with phased array
radar systems. Phased array radars, in this program, are for detection
of sea-launched ballistic missiles in the event of an attack upon the
continental United States.
The third item provides alteration of weapons storage and armed
aircraft alert facilities to improve security. Existing systems lack
modern detector sensors, hardened observation towers, and adequate
fencing, area lighting, and communications.
The program is approved.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
Installation Pro' ect Amount
f (thousands )
Aerospace Defense Command: Peterson Field, Colo- Base photo tab-------- ------- ---- _----------- _ -$563
Officers quarters ---------- __ _-------- ----- _ -896
Air Force Logistics Command:
Kelly AFB, Tex- ___. Logistcalmaterials stor.fac------------------ _-_ -7,071
Water storage tanks_______-__._.-_-____________ -438
McClellan AFB, Calif------------------------ Log, Nat. Processing Fcc------------- _ _________ -8,856
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio_____________ AF Inst, of Tech. Acad. fac----------------------- -3,500
Add to and alter human en;f.lab------ _----------- -2,400
Alter s?rsmagmengfac-------- _.____ -1,715
Air Force Systems Command: 100
Brooks AFB, Tex_____________________ _ ___ Human resources fac...... _____-____ --3,100
Edwards AFB, Calif --------------------- Elecpower plant and distSys --------------------- -1,238
Add to and alter fuel oil sto; age and heat fac------- -449
EglinAFB, Fla ----- _-________-_____-..____-- Alter airmen dorms --------------- ---- _------- _ .-1,837
Air Training Command:
Chanute AFB, III ---------------------------- Airmen dormitory ---------------- ___- __----- ._ +6,267
Mather AFB, Calif______------------------- _. Commissary----------------__ _ - _ -3,000
-------------- _
VanceAFB, Okla ---------------------------- Simulator training fac------------------ .--------- -4,800
Williams AFB, Ariz ------------------------------- do----------------- ------ -5,313
Alaskan Air Command: ShemyaAFB -------------- Water supply fac---------- ----- _ ------------- -280
Headquarters Command: Andrews AFB, Md-------- Spec air( raft sup fac__---------- _---- _------ __ --8,770
Militury AirliftCommand: Dover AFB, Del--------- Fuel supply fee_________________________________ -3,200
Pacific Air Forces (ZI), Hickam AFB, Hawaii___ ___ Aircraft fuel Sys maintfac__----------- ------ _ -919
Officers (juartars_.______----------- __..____-__ -2,716
Tactical Air Command:
Cannon AFB, N.Mex_----------------------- Recreaticncenter -------------- ._-------- .------- -832
George AFB, Calif ---------- _---------- _----- Aircraft inaintshop ---------------- ------- -948
MacDiIIAFB, Fla------------------ _--------- Aircrew largetstudy fee ---------------- ._------- -265
Special Facilities, various_____ __________-------- Radar su;)portfac------------------------------- -1,200
Command and control comm. fac_________________ -900
Operational flight sim_________________ ______ -6,000
AerosapceCorp.,ElSegundo- __------------------ Adminfatility----------- ------------- ----- _ '(+9,000)
Pacific Air Forces (O/S): Kunsan, Korea____ _ - _ Airman dorm- - --_____ - _ _ ___-___.__ _ _____-_. -2,210
Net reductions ------__ _____ __------- -------- ------------ 67,049
Nonadd item for authorization only in lieu of sec. 604 proposal received from the Air Force.
Defense Mapping Agency (sec. 401) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ $3,243,000
Defense Supply Agency (see. 401) ----------------- - ---- - - - - ---_ 6,336,000
National Security Agency (sec. 401) ---------------------------- 2,363,000
Defense Nuclear Agency (see. 401) __ - - - - - _ - _ - - 1,458,000
Subtotal--------------------------------- ------ 13, 400, 000
OSD emergency construction (see. 402) 15, 000, 000
Total ------ .------------------------------------------- 28,400,000
The Secretary of Defense requested $47,400,000 of which $17,400,
000 was to provide for the construction of new facilities and rehabilita-
tion of existing facilities for the Defense Agencies at 12 named installa-
tions. With few exceptions Defense Agencies' activities are located at
military installations, either utilizing existing facilities or siting re-
quired new facilities on these installations in the interest of economy.
$30,000,000 was for emergency construction authorization for the
Secretary of Defense to provide for unforeseen construction require-
ments in emergency situations.
The Defense Mapping Agency, for which $3,243,000 in new author-
ization is requested, was formed in 1972 by Presidential and DoD
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000700050002-2
47
directives by consolidating the resources of the Military Services to
furnish mapping, charting and geodesy (MC&G) support to the DoD
with optimum efficiency and economy. The DMA basic mission is to
furnish the operating forces maps, charts and position data needed by
troops on the ground, aircraft, ships and missiles to navigate, operate
and hit their targets.
This authorization will provide two additional floors on the existing
cartographic and geophysical facility at the DMA Aerospace Center
at St. Louis, Missouri; and ventilation and air conditioning of the
Defense Mapping School at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY (DSA)
The Defense Supply Agency, for which $6,336,000 in new authoriza-
tion is requested, is responsible for the organization, direction, man-
agement and administration, and control of supply and service func-
tions or departmental activities including the operation of a wholesale
distribution system for supplies. Also included in the Defense Supply
Agency responsibilities are the administration and supervision of the
Department of Defense coordinated procurement program, the Fed-
eral catalog system, excess and surplus disposal (personal property)
program, the defense material utilization program, the item entry con-
trol program, the industrial plant equipment program, the technical
(RDT&E) report services and the centralized referral system for dis-
placed DoD employees. In fulfilling the designated mission, the De-
fense Supply Agency continues toward the full assumption of its
responsibilities for providing uniform policies and procedures in the
field of inventory control, accounting, cataloging, standardization,
procurement, requirements computation, inspection and quality con-
trol, mobilization and industrial readiness planning, storage, inventory
and distribution, maintaining technical logistics data and information,
and initiating value engineering projects. In addition, the Defense
Supply Agency has been assigned the mission for consolidation of the
Contract Administration Services of the Army, the Navy, the Air
Force and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
This authorization will provide for alterations of a two-story
industrial-type structure, water quality control and road drainage
improvements at the Defense Construction Supply Center, Columbus,
Ohio; warehouse lighting and power improvements at the Defense
Depot, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; flammable storage facility im-
provements, upgrade restroom facilities, fire protection and safety
devices and warehouse lighting and power improvements at the
Defense Depot, Memphis, Tennessee; warehouse lighting and power
improvements at the Defense Depot, Ogden, Utah, facility improve-
ments and heating plant pollution control at the Defense Electronics
Supply Center, Dayton, Ohio; upgrade interior electrical system and
facility improvements at the Defense Industrial Plant Equipment
Facility, Atchison, Kansas; and an operations facility, environmental
improvements and upgrade restaurant facility at the Defense Person-
nel Support Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
48
The National Security Agency, for which $2,363,000 in new author-
ization is requested, replaced the former Armed Forces Security
Agency and was created by the Secretary of Defense in 1949 to unify
the separate organizations within each military department. The
National Security Agency, under the direction and control of the
Secretary of Defense, performs highly specialized technical and
coordinating functions relating to its mission of national security and
intelligence production.
This authorization will provide for an operations building addition
and modernization of bachelor enlisted quarters at NSA Head-
quarters, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland.
DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY (DNA)
The Defense Nuclear Agency for which $5,458,000 in new authori-
zation was requested has four major areas of responsibility as its
mission: (1) Staff advice and assistance on nuclear weapons matters
to the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Military
Departments, and other Government Agencies; (2) consolidated
management of the DOD Nuclear Weapons Stockpile; (3) manage-
ment of DOD Nuclear Weapons Testing and Nuclear Weapons
Effects Research Programs; and (4) performing technical studies and
analysis, and coordinating directives on nuclear related matters for
the Department of Defense.
This authorization will provide waterfront improvements at Johns-
ton Atoll, Marshall District/Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
The Committee denied authorization of $4,000,000 for the initial
phase of radiological cleanup of Eniwetok Atoll on the grounds that
insufficient planning had been completed to the point that a firm
estimate of overall cost could be predicted.
OFFICE, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
The Office, Secretary of Defense is pxovided $15,000,000 in new
authorization for emergency construction authorization for the Secre-
tary of Defense to provide for unforeseen construction requirements
which he considers vital to the security of the United States. The
Committee denied $15,000,000 of the requested authorization in
view of the existing balances of prior year authorizations and funds
now on hand in the Department of Defense.
TITLE V-MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING AND HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE
I 'ROGRAM
The Department of Defense presented an authorization request for
appropriations for military family housing and the Homeowners
Assistance Program as follows:
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
49
Thou8ands
_ _ _ _ _ _ $337, 422
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Construction of new housing (10,460 units) -----------------------
Army (4,360 units) ------------------- ------------------- 136,285
Navy, including Marine Corps (3,900 units) -_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 136, 038
Air Force (2,200 units) ------------------------------------- 65,099
Construction of mobile home facilities---------------------------- 1,848
960
Army (240 spaces) ---------------888
Air Force (200 spaces) ------------------------------------
Improvements to existing quarters------------------------------- 60, 000
20,000
Army ----------------------------------------------- 20,000
Navy, including Marine Corps------------------------
Air Force------------------------------------------------- 20,000
Minor construction-------------------------------------------- 3,.720
Planning----------------------------------------------------
Less: Amounts available from prior year-------------------- (20)
Total appropriation request, construction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 403, 870
Operating expenses-------------------------------------------- 360,722
Leasing -----------------------------------------------468,438 Maintenance of real property ----------------------------------- 1 35313 9
,,2 299
9
Debt payment, principal--------------------------------------
87
Debt payment, interest and other expense------------------------ 54, 187
Mortgage insurance premiums, Capehart and Wherry--------------
Servicemen's mortgage insurance premiums----------------------- 3, 722
Less: Anticipated reimbursements and amounts available from (14, 898)
prior years-------------------------
Total appropriation request, operation, maintenance, and debt 938,413
payment ---------------------------------------------
Total requested authorization for appropriations for family 1,342,283
--
housing -----------------------
Homeowners assistance program--------------------------------- 5, 000
NEW CONSTRUCTION
The Department of Defense requested 10,462 new family housing
units for the Fiscal Year 1975 program in which Army would have
4,360 units, Navy 3,000 units, Air Force 2,200 units and Defense In-
telligence Agency 2 units. The number of units requested for new
construction continues the high level attained in the previous four
years and brings the total program to just over 50,000 units in five
years. It was pointed out by the Defense witness that this significant
progress could only have been accomplished with the complete support
of the Committee without whose cooperation it would not have been
possible.
The Defense witness testified that the program reflected the con-
tinuing emphasis placed by the Department of Defense on the main-
tenance of the forces and the welfare of the individual serviceman.
He indicated that the objective of the program was to assure that
married members of the Armed Forces had suitable housing-a morale
factor of prime importance, and stated that as it corollary the objective
of the program was closely aligned and dovetailed with the objectives
of the all-volunteer force. He reported continued and significant
Ii.R. 1244 0-- 4
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
50
progress in providing more adequate housing on-base, in upgrading
the condition of the existing inventory and in securing suitable
quarters off-base.
The Defense witness stated that the policy of Defense was to rely on
the local civilian market in communities near military installations as
the primary source of family housing. Only where community support
was limited or inadequate as to cost, distance or quality was authority
requested to construct on-base housing. Additionally, particular care
had been taken in the programming review to assure that requests for
new construction reflected requirements only at hardcore installations.
Because of this concentration on hardcore bases, coupled with the
recent build-up of new construction and continued reliance on the local
community, the programmable deficit was currently estimated to be
26,000 units. This compared with prior estimates in recent years of
90,000 to 1.10,000. The Defense witness pointed out that the reduction
of the deficit to it manageable level was due to the declining force
structure, the contraction of the base establishment and the cumulative
effect of recent military pay raises, particularly in the lower grades,
which put more community housing within the economic means of the
serviceman. He indicated that, as in previous years, Defense continued
to place most attention on construction for enlisted men and junior
officers, and pointed out that this year it amounted to 98.3% of the
total program.
The Defense witness observed that because the deficit of adequate
housing had been reduced to a manageable level, Defense felt that the
corner had been turned with regard to large-scale new housing con-
struction projects on a Defense-wide basis. Accordingly, Defense in
the next five years will concentrate on a select and perhaps more
modest new construction program to meet specialized needs, such as
realignment or consolidation of forces, new bases or locations; upgrad-
ing and modernization of the existing Defense inventory; special
programs in select areas such as "special risk insurance" in cooperation
with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to stimu-
late community growth in non-metropolitan areas at or around
military installations; and leasing or lease-construct agreements in
overseas areas where feasible.
The Defense witness noted that 3,000 of the units planned for the
Fiscal Year 1975 construction program were intended for the lower pay
grades of enlisted personnel previously considered "ineligible" for the
programming of family housing. An additional 3,000 domestic leases
also were programmed for those lower grades. He indicated that this
was in keeping with the current thrust of Defense to give more
recognition to the needs of married personnel in the lower pay grades
as evidenced by the proposal of Defense in the Fiscal Year 1975
program to extend entitlements for travel and transportation allowance
to all enlisted grades, currently restricted to personnel in grades E-4
with more than two years service and higher. As a result of this decision
Defense was expanding the programming base for determining require-
merits for family housing to include all married personnel, which
blankets all former "ineligibles" into he requirements base. The
Defense witness pointed out that this initiative partially filled the void
created by the non-availability of low and moderate income sub-
sidized housing; exhibited the trend and intent of Defense housing
policies to enhance the Pttractiveness of a military career; and con-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
tributed toward the objective of Defense to assure adequate housing
for all military families.
In this connection the Defense witness observed that Defense at one
time intended that the primary source of housing assistance for the
married personnel in the lower pay grades would be through the
implementation of the Section 236 low income community housing
program as provided by Section 120 of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1970. Defense took effective steps to fully employ
this program but the program was curtailed by the Administration's
"freeze" on subsidized housing programs in January 1973. Defense
also has proposed new legislation to resolve the problem of non-
availability of FHA insured programs in "military-impacted" areas
by arranging for including in the Revised National Housing Act
provisions that would permit the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to insure private housing under the Special Risk
Insurance Fund in areas heretofore considered uninsurable. This
would provide that in areas where the residual housing requirements
might be insufficient to sustain the housing market in the event of
curtailment of employment, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development may require the Secretary of Defense to certify that
force levels will remain stable for the foreseeable future at the installa-
tions concerned. It was indicated that Defense would continue to
pursue this matter as a vital part of the Defense housing program.
The Defense witness advised that Defense has begun consultations
with the Department of Housing and Urban Development as to the
availability of adequate housing at locations in the domestic part of the
program. The Committee after review in detail felt that much of the
construction program proposed by Defense was fully justified. How-
ever, the Committee felt that a number of items were questionable and
accordingly withheld approval from them. The Committee did not
approve expanding the programming base to include lower enlisted pay
grades because the Committee felt that the deficit for the higher grades
should be eliminated before programming was extended to the lower
grades. The Committee did not feel that it was necessary for the gov-
ernment to invest in constructing housing units for personnel who may
have enlisted for the minimum period of time on a trial basis or for
those personnel who have not seriously considered a career in the mili-
tary service. Rather than everyone having a right to family housing,
the Committee felt that housing should be retained as a form of career
inducement for those personnel who intended to stay in the military
service for a reasonable period of time. Furthermore, the Committee
felt that it was premature for Defense to embark on a housing program
for a new group of personnel while career military personnel were still
unsuitably housed. Accordingly, the Committee did not authorize the
3,000 units planned for construction for the lower pay grades nor for
the 3,000 domestic leases also planned for the lower grades. In addition,
the Committee did not authorize the construction of 422 units (which
included 122 for the lower pay grades) for the Naval Complex in Nor-
folk, Va.
The Committee noted that there was considerable opposition to the
program from local individuals who contended that there was no need
for additional military housing in Norfolk. The Committee also did not
authorize 1,000 Army and 700 Navy units requested for Hawaii be-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
52
cause it noted the large number of units which had been previously
authorized for Hawaii and the fact that action had not been taken to
put a sizable number of units already authorized for Hawaii under
contract. The Committee also did not authorize 60 units for Rock
Island Arsenal, Illinois because there was a reasonable doubt that the
project may not be required and the Committee felt that under the
circumstances it would be prudent to defer the project for further
study. In addition, the Committee did not approve the deficiency au-
thorization requested for construction at the Naval Station, Keflavik,
Iceland of 150 units authorized by Public Law 93-166. Recognizing
the vast backlog of construction of Keflavik and that a family housing
project was requested for authorization in Fiscal Year 1975 for this
location, the Committee did not feel it advisable to provide an increase
in cost for a project previously authorized. The Committee authorized
the construction of all other family housing projects and the request of
Defense to construct 440 mobile hom.e spaces for privately-owned
mobile homes to provide safe, sanitary and reasonably priced ac-
commodations for those servicemen who own mobile homes and who
cannot find adequate parking spaces in the community.
COST LIMITATIONS ON NEW CONSTRUCTION
The Defense witness in discussing the need for an increase in the
statutory cost limitations on the construction of military family hous-
ing stated that Defense had carefully considered the acceleration of
cost growth, actual as well as predicted, to the mid-point of construc-
tion for the Fiscal Year 1975 program, and then had developed pro-
gram cost estimates on a project by project basis. This revealed that
successful accomplishment of the Fiscal Year 1975 program would re-
quire that the average unit cost limitation on construction in the
United States (other than Alaska and Hawaii) should be raised from
$27,000 to $30,000, and the average cost of all units in other areas from
$37,000 to $40,000; and that the cost of any one unit should not exceed
$46,000.
The Committee noted that Defense had requested that unusual site
development costs be excluded from the cost limitations. The Defense
witness pointed out that this had been requested so that a project
would not be penalized by the inclusion of such extraordinary costs
not normally encountered in a typical project.
The Committee also noted that Defense had requested that the
application of the average unit cost for units constructed in the United
States (other than Alaska and Hawaii) be on a DOD-wide basis as
against an individual military department basis as heretofore.
The Committee recognizing the sharp escalation in construction
costs, approved the increase in the cost limitations requasted. The
Committee also approved the request, of Defense to apply the averffe
unit cost for units constructed in the United States (other than Alaska
and Hawaii) on. a DOD-wide basis. The Committee did not approve
the request to exclude unusual site development costs from the cost
limitations because it felt this provision provided too wide a latitude
to Defense. The Committee also did not approve a requested provision
to make the new cost limitations applicable to projects authorized in
previous years, but not yet under contract. It felt that this provided
Defense with a blank check for deficiency authorization and that if a
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
53
need arose for this sort of action, it could be handled on a case by case
basis. The Committee approved an exception to the cost limitations
for the construction or acquisition of 200 family housing units at the
Naval Station, Keflavik, Iceland and 2 units at Warsaw, Poland, The
units in Warsaw are to be funded by use of excess foreign currency
when so provided in Department of Defense Appropriation Acts.
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING FAMILY HOUSING
The Defense witness stated that the Defense program included a
total of $60 million for improvement and alteration of existing public
quarters and for the modernization and renovation of older and
deteriorated units. He indicated that the backlog of such necessary
work to upgrade the inventory was estimated at $700 million and that
there was no other single program that would pay quicker dividends
and provide such substantial benefits in terms of increased morale to
the military families who occupy on-base housing, plus the fact that
it would provide increased life and livability to the structures them-
selves. The Committee recognizing the necessity for such a program
approved improvements to existing family housing in the amount of
$60 million. The Committee also approved the exemption of improve-
ment projects at Fort McNair, Washington, District of Columbia,
and Fort Sam Houston, Texas from the $15,000 cost limitation on
improvements, because of exceptional circumstances. It did not ap-
prove a similar request for Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio,
because it felt too much money was being requested to provide air-
conditioning for a single home.
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN LEASING PROGRAMS
The Defense witness stated that the Defense program included a
request to increase the limitation on the number of domestic leases
from 10,000 to 13,00 to provide ]eased housing for the lower pay
grades of enlisted personnel, previously ineligible for consideration.
He indicated that the leasing program was effective in providing
necessary family housing accommodations for military personnel,
especially those on recruiting duty in metropolitan areas, and in
providing an important supplement to Defense's balanced effort to
acquire adequate housing both in the community and on-base. He
also pointed out that because of escalation of rental costs, increases
were being requested in the statutory average cost and maximum cost
limitations. In addition, he indicated that a request was being made
to exempt 1,000 units from the requested amount of $310 per month
for any one unit in the United States (other than Alaska and Hawaii)
but not to exceed $400 per month, for occupancy by personnel on
detached duty in metropolitan areas. This would include such per-
sonnel as recruiters and ROTC instructors. The Committee approved
the requested increases in the statutory average cost and maximum
cost limitations for domestic leases, except that in the case of Alaska
and Hawaii the average cost would be increased only to $295 and the
maximum to $365. The, Committee felt the increases requested for
Alaska and Hawaii were too extreme. As indicated previously, the
Committee did not approve the request for an additional 3,000 leases
for the lower pay grades. The Committee also did not approve the
request to exempt 1,000 units from the $310 per month maximum
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
54
because it felt this late starter request was not sufficiently justified
to support a change of this magnitude. It felt that with proper manage-
ment, the domestic leasing program could be utilized fully to take care
of those requiring this type of housing.
The Defense witness stated that leasing of family housing in foreign
countries, particularly lease-construct agreements in selected overseas
locations, represented a viable potential for providing additional hous-
ing for military families in foreign countries at a minimum risk to the
United States Government, especially in areas where United States
military tenure would be subject to change. Accordingly, he indicated
that Defense was proposing an expansion of the program from 7,500
to 12,000 units, with the increase being used primarily to alleviate the
severe deficit of housing for Army troops in Germany. In addition, he
stated that increases in the statutory cost limitations were being
requested on the basis of a 9 percent cost escalation in rents in foreign
countries. The Committee approved the requested increase in the
number of fcreign leases and the increase in the average unit rental
from $325 per month to $355 per month, but did not approve the
requested increase in the maximum unit rental of $625 per month
because it felt the increase was unwarranted.
HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The Defense witness stated that an additional appropriation of
$5 million was needed for the Homeowner Assistance Program because
it was established that carry-over funds in the Homeowners Assistance
Fund and revenue from sale of homes acquired under the Program
would be insufficient to see the Program through FY 1975. Besides
the usual residual operations of the Program, the base realignment
announcement of April 17, 1973 will continue to have a significant
impact on the Program in FY 1975. Applications for assistance con-
tinue to come in as the various Departments of Defense elements
gradually phase out their operations, especially the Naval installa-
tions in Rhode Island. Since there is a time interval involved in the
processing of applications now being received, the funding effect of
these applications as well as applications still to be received will be felt
in FY 1975. Also, changes affecting 59 overseas locations ordered last
fall and the realignment announcements of February 4, 7 and 8, 1974
covering actions at, Army and Air Force installations will have most of
their effect in FY 1975. In addition, the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretaries of the Military Departments have announced or indicated
elimination of or significant reductions in headquarters installations
throughout the world. All of these actions will have an impact in
FY 1975. Additional realignments of military installations, both at
home and abroad, are presently under consideration and it was ex-
pected that within a short time frame a variety ol! installations will
be realigned as the result of internal Military Department management
improvements. It was anticipated that personnel at some of these will
also require assistance in FY 1975. Accordingly, the Committee ap-
proved the additional $5 million for the Homeowners Assistance
Program.
AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
Authorization for appropriation of $245,366,000 for the construction
and acquisition portions of the military family housing program were
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
55
approved by the Committee. The Committee also approved $935,515,-
000 for operation, maintenance and debt payment, and in addition
approved $5,000,000 for the Homeowners Assistance Program.
TITLE VI-GENERAL PROVISIONS
With few exceptions virtually all of the general provisions contained
in this year's authorization are identical to those contained in prior
years' legislation. Those exceptions are discussed along with the
standardized sections in synopsized form in the following:
Section 601 is authorization language identical to section 601 in last
year's Act (P.L. 93-166). It has the effect of continuing authorization
to the Secretary of each military department to develop installations
and facilities under this Act free of the following limitations:
31 USC 529 which specifies the general prohibition against
advances of public monies,
10 USC 4774 and 9774 which establishes limitations upon con-
struction of permanent structures, in the absence of other
authorization, and
40 USC 255 which prohibits acquisition of land by purchase
until a written opinion in favor of Title validity has been obtained.
The prohibitions specified in the first and third limitations cited
above, if applied, would preclude timely construction in instances of
military necessity. Section 601 grants exceptions to these limitations.
Section 602 is language which customarily appears in each annual
military construction Act and corresponds to the equivalent section
in prior years Acts (e.g., Sec. 602, P.L. 93-166), except that the
dollar amounts are changed to the amounts of authorization for proj-
ects contained in titles I, II, III, IV, and V, of the Act. It limits the
amount which may be appropriated to carry out the projects author-
ized by separate titles of the Act.
Section 603 is identical to section 603 in last year's Act (P.L.
93-166). This section has the effect of authorizing the Secretary
concerned, at his discretion, to increase the amount of authorization
as it appears in titles I, II, III, or IV of this Act for bases inside the
United States other than Hawaii and Alaska by 5% and for bases
outside the United States or in Hawaii and Alaska by 10% provided
that he determines that such increase (1) is required for the sole pur-
pose of meeting unusual variations in cost arising.and in connection
with that project, and (2) could not have been reasonably anticipated
at the time such project was submitted to the Congress. However,
when the authorization involves only one project at a named military
installations, the amount authorized may be increased up to 25%.
The total costs of all projects in each such title may not be more than
the total amount authorized to be appropriated for projects in that title.
At multi-project military installations, contracts for an individual
project may not be awarded until 30 days after a report is furnished
the Armed Services Committees, if the estimated cost of the project is
$250,000 or more and the current working estimate of the Department
of Defense, based on bids received exceeds 25% of the amount au-
thorized for the project (normally on Forms DD-1391). An annual
report is required covering any project on which the current working
estimate based upon bids received exceeded the amount authorized
by the Congress by more than 25% and also on projects whose scope
has been reduced to permit awards within available authorization.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000700050002-2
56
Section 604 is similar to section 604 in last years Act (P.L. 93-166).
This section has the effect of directing that construction executed
under this Act (1) be done by the Army Corps of Engineers or the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, or such other department or
Government agency as the Secretaries of the military departments
recommend and the Secretary of Defense approves to assure efficient,
expeditious and cost-effective accomplishment; (2) that the Secre-
taries of the military departments report annually to the President
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House a breakdown of the dollar
value of contracts completed by the construction agencies, together
with the design, construction supervision, and overhead fees charged
by such agencies; (3) that all contracts (except for architect and en-
gineering contracts which, unless otherwise authorized, shall continue
to be awarded in accordance with presently established procedures,
customs and practice) be awarded insofar as practicable on a competi-
tive basis to the lowest responsible bidder; and (4) the Secretaries of
the military departments report annually to the President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House with respect to all contracts awarded
on other than a competitive basis to the lowest responsible bidder.
Section 605 is similar to the repeal set out in last year's Act (Sec.
605, P.L. 93-166) and continues in effect the previously established
policy of repealing militar~r construction authorizations- that have not
been used within a specified period after enactment. As a result,
after October 1, 1975, only those authorizations, with certain excep-
tions, which are contained in Public Laws and enacted subsequent to
November 29, 1973, would continue to remain available.
Section 606 corresponds to section 006 of last year's Act (P.L. 93-
166). This section prescribes the cost limitations for permanent bar-
racks and bachelor officer quarters, but increases these limitations.
Under this section, the cost limitations as stated in dollar amounts
in the Act are applicable where the area construction cost index is 1.0.
The cost limitations in areas where the area construction cost index is
more or less than 1.0 will be computed and would be proportionately
higher or lower. For example, if the area construction cost index was
1.05, the cost limitation for permanent barracks would be $29.92 per
square foot.
This section would leave in effect the existing cost limitations of
$28.50 per square foot for permanent barracks and $30.50 per square
foot for bachelor officer quarters retroactive to projects which have
been previously authorized, but not contracted for as of the time of
enactment. The Department of Defense had requested an increase in
these limitations from $28.50 per square foot to $31.00 for barracks
and from $30.50 per square foot to $33.00 for bachelor officer quarters.
The Committee declined to increase these limits on grounds that the
existing amounts were considered adequate.
Section 607 has been added to revise upward the current A/E con-
tract cost "floor" above which the Military Services must report to
the Armed Services Committees of the House of Representatives and
the Senate 30 days prior to obligation of any A/E contract estimated to
cost $150,000 or more. This notification procedure 30 days prior to
obligation. applies to all advance planning, design and architectural
services for projects to be financed from monies hereafter appropriated.
Since this provision was enacted into law some eight years ago, con-
struction costs have escalated approximately 80 percent. Accordingly,
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
57
the current $150,000 figure should be revised upward to more accu-
rately reflect the intent for control of such obligations as measured in
terms of today's costs. Although the Department of Defense had
requested that this limitation be increased to $300,000, the Committee
felt that a lower figure would be more in consonance with increased
costs experienced to date and has approved a revised limit of $225,000.
Section 608. This provision provides authority for use of the pro-
ceeds from the sale of recycleable materials at military installations.
First the cost of collection, handling and sale including purchase of
equipment necessary to the recycling could be financed from these pro-
ceeds, and then remaining funds up to a maximum of $50,000 per
year at any one installation could be used for environmental improve-
ment and energy conservation projects. The balances if any after such
expenditures would be returned to the U.S. Treasury as miscellaneous
receipts.
Section 609. This provision has been added to provide for the
conveyance by the Secretary of the Navy to the Boy Scouts of America
of approximately 12.46 acres of the Naval Education and Training
Program Development Center at Ellyson, Florida. This conveyance
would be at fair market value to the Boy Scouts of America including
costs for surveys and preparation of such legal documents as may be
necessary. The Navy has interposed no objection to this transfer and
the property would substantially benefit the training and camp-
ing programs of the Boy Scouts in the Gulf Coast Council of that
organization.
Section 610. This is a now provision designed to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to take all practicable actions to ameliorate and
lessen the local community impact of new TRIDENT installations at
Bangor, Washington. It directs the Secretary to consult with other
Federal Agencies concerned with implementing Federal financial
assistance programs to governmental entities and to help such entities
to pay their share of the costs of such programs. This is similar in
nature to the authorization provided for the SAFEGUARD program
where sudden large influxes of workers in low population density
communities produced severe financial burdens related to provision
of health, education, utilities and similar community services to such
employees of federally sponsored projects.
Section 611. This provision amends Section 2662 of Title 10, U.S.
Code to prohibit the termination of an existing license or permit held
by a military department for real property owned by the United
States Government if the military department has made or proposes
to make substantial investments in connection with their use of the
property. This would avoid the capricious cancellation or modification
of licenses or permits of public lands to the military departments when
large amounts of public monies had already been expended or were to
be programed in support of essential military activities on such lands
unless the Armed Services Committees of the Congress were notified
30 days prior to such action.
Section 612. This provision would authorize the conveyance by the
Secretary of the Army to the State of Louisiana of approximately
1,710 acres of U.S. land in Saint Ta,.at,?any Parish now known as
Camp Villere. This property has for many years been under license to
the State for Louisiana National Guard use and will continue to be
used for these purposes under the proposed conveyance. This con-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
58
vevance would facilitate planned improvements to this property for
National Guard purposes by the State and would reserve to the
United States the right to reoccupy and use the property in time of
war or emergency. This provision is similar to a number of other like
conveyances in past years where the U.S. Government has passed
title to such National Guard camps to the States in order to facilitate
militarily essential improvements by the States which in a great
number of instances are prohibited by State law unless title to the
property is vested in the State.
TITLE VII-RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
Army National Guard ----------------------------------------
$53,
800,
000
Army Reserve-----------------------------------------------
38,
600,
000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve_____________________________
19,
867,
000
Air National Guard-----------------------------
26,
000,
000
Air Force Reserve ---------------------------------------------
14,000,000
152, 267, 000
Title VII provides authorization required in fiscal year 1975 to
support the facilities programs of the Guard and Reserve*
eserve Components
of the Military Departments in the amounts indicated above.
The total amount provided this fiscal year represents an increase of
nearly 39 percent over the FY 1974 authorization request of $109,-
658,000. For the fourth consecutive year, the Committee has approved
a substantial increase in the Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities
Construction program thereby reflecting the continuing joint con-
viction of this Committee and the Department of Defense that a
viable, well-trained and fully-equipped Reserve Force is an indis-
pensable element of the planned Total Military Force. The Committee
also supports the views of Department of Defense witnesses that
adequate facilities have become an increasingly important factor not
only in achieving the requisite combat readiness but in aiding the
recruiting and retention of Reserve personnel in the present all-
volunteer environment. Accordingly, the Committee has approved the
totals indicated in the above table. However, the Naval and Marine
Corps total reflects an added $1,335,000 which the Committee ap-
proved to facilitate the Naval Reserve expansion of an existing excess
Air Force facility concurrent with a similar action by the Army
Reserve.
Under the lump sum authorization procedures, the Congress will be
furnished advance notification concerning the location, nature, and
estimated cost of all projects over $100,000 which are to be undertaken
within the total lump sum authorization available. This procedure is
identical to that used in previous years except that it reflects the
Committee's acknowledgement of the Department of Defense pro-
posal to amend 10 USC 2233a(1) by increasing the current minimum
project cost for which Congressional notification must be made from
$50,000 to $100,000.
Consistent with the usual lump sum authorization procedures, spe-
cific projects supporting the total fiscal year 1975 authorization request
can only be tentatively identified at this time. However, current
indications are that $52,521,000 would be used to construct or expand
79 armories or centers for the Army National Guard and Army Re-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
59
serve, while $39,879,000 would be used for 87 additional projects to
provide essential maintenance, aviation support, field training and
other miscellaneous non-armory facilities. Similarly, $8,223,000 would
be used for seven Navy and/or Marine Corps Reserve Centers, and
$11,644,000 for aviation maintenance, personnel support, and other
operational requirements. The remaining proposed authorization
would provide the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve $14,-
542,000 for operational facilities, $19,038,000 for aviation maintenance
facilities, $4,710,000 for training facilities, and $1,710,000 for per-
sonnel support and storage facilities, and a major site preparation
requirement.
The following summary indicates the status of the lump sum au-
thorization provided since the Reserve Forces facilities program re-
verted to that method of authorization in 1963.
RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES-ESTIMATED STATUS OF LUMP SUM AUTHORIZATIONS (AS OF APR. 1, 1974)
[In thousands of dollars]
Army
---
Navy and
M
i
Air Force
National
Guard
Reserve
ar
ne
Corps
Reserve
National
Guard
Reserve
Total
1. Lump-sum authorization (cumula-
tive fiscal year 1963-74)------- __
2. Estimate of authorization to be com-
160, 306
144, 700
107, 153
134, 373
56, 570
603, 282
mitted through fiscal year 1974___
156, 489
142, 837
105, 290
134, 012
56, 650
595, 278
3. Uncommitted baIance-------------
3,817
1,863
1,863
361
100
8
004
4. Added by present bill_____________
53,800
38,600
18,532
26,000
14,000
,
150,932
5. Total available for fiscal year 1975._
6. Estimated commitments in fiscal
57, 617
40, 463
20, 395
26, 301
14, 100
158, 936
year 1975______________________
7. Estimated residual authorization,
53,800
40,463
18,532
26,361
14,000
153, 156
end fiscal year 1975_____________
3,817
0
1,863
0
100
5,780
FISCAL DATA
The original submission for the fiscal year 1975 Military Construc-
tion Authorization Bill was in the amount of $3,278,380,000. Com-
mittee action resulted in a net reduction of $347,957,000 so that the
enactment of this measure will authorize the expenditure of $2,925,-
301,000 of which $152,267,000 represents construction for the Reserve
components.
FIVE-YEAR COST PROJECTION
The committee, in complying with the requirement of Section
252(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (Public Law
91-510), requested a letter from the Department of Defense contain-
ing a five-year projection of the costs that would be engendered by this
legislation. The reply, which is self-explanatory, is set out below:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS,
Hon. F. EDWARD HA,BERT,
Washington, D. C., July 29, 1974.
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to the requirement of
section 252(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (Public
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
60
Law 91-510). Our estimate of the cost to be incurred in carrying
out the proposed Military Construction Authorization Bill, FY 1975
($2,925,301,000) in Fiscal Year 1975 and in each of the five succeeding
fiscal years is as follows:
Fiscal year:
1975--------------------------------------------------- $888,613,000
1976------------------------------------------------- 861,027,000
1977--------------------------------------------------- 603,999,000
1978-------------------------------------------------- 318,734,000
1979--------------------------------------------------- 212,008,000
1980 and later ----------------------.-____------- _ 40,920,000
Total ------------------------------------------------- 2, 925, 301, 000
If we can be of any further assistance in this regard, please advise.
Sincerely yours,
SIGMUND I. GERBER,
(For Perry J. Fliakas,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,
(Installations and Housing)).
The committee did point out to the House that this is an annual
authorization act. The authorizations herein provided are reviewed
annually by the committee and the Congress.
COMMITTEE POSITION
On Tuesday, July 30, 1974, the Armed Services Committee by a
unanimous vote agreed to report H.R. 16136 to the House.
This measure is part of the legislative program of the Department
of Defense for fiscal year 1975. The submission by the Department
in the amount of $3,278,380,000 was dated 4 April 1974 as shown by
the letter from the Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger which
is .set out below:
THE -SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., April 4, 1974.
EIOn. CARL ALBERT,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There is forwarded herewith a draft of legisla-
tion "To authorize certain construction at military installations and
for other purposes."
This proposal is a part of the Department of Defense legislative
program for FY 1975. The Office of Management and Budget on
March 19, 1974, advised that its enactment would be in accordance
with the program of the President.
This legislation would authorize military construction needed by the
Iepartment of Defense at this time, and would provide additional
authority to cover deficiencies in essential construction previously
authorized. Appropriations in support of this legislation are provided
for in the Budget of the United States Government for the FY 1975.
Titles I, II, III, and IV of this proposal would authorize $1,780,-
165,000 in new construction for requirements of the Active Forces,
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
61
of which $696,815,000 are for the Department of the Army; $567,-
674,000 for the Department of the Navy; $468,276,000 for the Depart-
ment of the Air Force; and $47,400,000 for the Defense Agencies.
Title V contains legislative recommendations considered necessary
to implement the Department of Defense family housing program and
authorizes $1,347,283,000 for costs of that program for FY 1975.
Title VI contains General Provisions generally applicable to the
Military Construction Program.
Title VII totaling $150,932,000 would authorize construction for the
Reserve Components of which $53,800,000 is for the Army National
Guard; $38,600,000 for the Army Reserve; $18,532,000 for the Naval
and Marine Corps Reserves; $26,000,000 for the Air National Guard;
and $14,000,000 for the Air Force Reserve. These authorizations are
in lump sum amounts and will be utilized in accordance with the
requirements of chapter 133, title 10, United States Code.
The projects which would be authorized by this proposal have been
reviewed to determine if environmental impact statements are required
in accordance with Public Law 91-190. Required environmental
statements will be submitted to the Congress by the military depart-
ments when necessary procedures have been completed.
Sincerely,
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
62
V Gr"
C7
Fr ~
CV
y ti
'!,
y O
r!1 ,.
U
,
F-i
~
M'-Cj zy
C7" ~ ~ .Ur Cr
U
H ?,~
.Er
y bA V
O
p ? J
V v3 O G+' O
SQ,
-+ A a9 ?. R O
as
0 c 0
b
A. A. o
L) Cd
CA ~O
aka
w
m
1 -
L7 U O y
N Cl
O
a3 O
ell
O
'"?~
u d O
V 67 ~
b
G
7
cd
cq W'?005
cd F"'~ ~ ~ ~ cD
0
I~
+
~~?+
c
0
~'Fa ~CX11~ CA
~~++
W
a
CJ O
09 Cd cf3
E
~ V1 F7 ~
? ~
C3
D
~j q?a'
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
63
U m U
W cd G' v~
'Qi cd R/ F-. ' vl
w ~ ~ ~ ~ Uo3
bA
-''moo
a a
.
-
C/)?
P,aa~
41
W
-Cy E
..
69
O~
?^
00 O
y
cq
q
W
y0
o
O
00 ~
cf
W
a3 E
~ O
,~ Qj
F" ~
x
W
~s9~c9aw5
b'- O? O y z
~ y
Q' v1
a by
rti y ~ ~ ~ `rte y
~U.- v x
(~ ti
="C of F q,ti q,~ W
y 0 O C Q
h`Y a~ o ~ ti ~ a. p
m /1 ~?
O~ ~. 03 co p ^d ti
ri1O??C+
4.1
CV
O
y
!C= 0
'- O CV
w U O -'
X000
CV m V O
,:
O o3 00
41
c O v
,?O
p? bAC 5 e+ FUr
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
n 'F o
1j H @ q = aU
Z -- w Fs3
00 . U)
b C"i ter ~ ? CAD ~
U"C U Ge ^G'~O
U' O
n O
'
cl
.~
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
65
-C!
a> Q sy
Cc) A' A ~'~d0+
EE'?p
cd
Ic p 93
O O
O O
O O
U
vi
Cj "U, fi~9 0
co bAAy O
co d d4
c ? F1J
Q~ c O
~ O^
A" O O
as C4 ko
PL, 13)
H 0 ~+ . o ti
v ~ ?,? U O OeM
co CO?~
O
CV
w
P-I
0.1
-0
woo
P5
Pz
"w_
co
~0 0~
H
o
n~
O
U 'd C~ O
w O o b-' .--i ?)
~w
?
-a o 0
O
-oCc)
y H
C.)
?
01 y
mZ
G,~
'~ v
ap^w
L~r
0))
U
C) 00 Cl)
00 y
Ort
I
p
C)
x
F
w
A
E
W'~
d
a3 ~ yO
Ca0
~4 -u
~3 0
~
O O
G ..
v
C7
n d 0
Ff3
O m.. ..
A O
O y ,
y a
d.~
H.R. 1244 O--5
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
66
bA"~ 'CS ..
O G'.~ d d,0
m~ r
hw
A
'-, C ? ~ a' i/ bA
t`
O ~
~ ad_ ~ F"~y ?5
G cd
O I
C)
H
U
U v N O C1
'~ r~li~i?.LN. ON
a O eh
y s O A
N p
F U
O R"'O O DC +,O
gn,
CD
..
O ~~ r~HH m
C) H CJ p H h-
E OH a
Fr
a w )
~~ O J U
^" by v d
E;
~ U c9 p y,~
l
r
e E5
OO
p A
O
aG by
_ ~A++
O
w
p
c
. '~
~ O a9
~
N
Cq
O
H
U C~ y
0
H
O
U
~ A ~ 00
m.a~ 059
O G ' L7 O S:,'
GV V CJ ?r C)
ao~...
J~ C) C C) a
'C Ca R a' C)
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
67
m ~ ti p
z U.~ O'er
71
w
:z r-i
(1~ cl
p3
z
w O
vrd?~
~~O N 00
O C-1 'C ;,'
U
~'~ G ~ `n c00
coo
uJ ^
r
U
p3
P w 41
U C
a~ v ?o~ yy^
~Z ~~ 00 x470 1
O ti O 0
G O0'l? mr'?+ c0
aO. m- Q vA,~
14
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
~GC
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
GC i G3 cell '--' `S~ S O H G3 +] Z -~
.4 S,) uj
~ o ~W?ow~ ~c 0 00
dp E-w E-~'~o c~ o H~ w ~'o
c~nd~ bA.~, O^ bAy aAv bpyp~~ .,.,-u
cq C.)
mar= ?AO. o o co a O,- ~a~ a~ a d ~aW o
00
aoi cd cc C o 0 ~n m 00 m G~~ m C))
Ud) yQ O U O
T 00
5-1 00
00 Ge at gs
0
00 cO ?o ?o
n Q'
o n c
fir. ?m
p (zi . ~ _O ,C o J O
Pa ti P~ W ~ a
.y FJi .r-cl U U G~ v~"c3
~-i -I 00
Is (1) (V -1 1 lc~
U) C Go Ge
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
70
Goo
~;I to
~"p m~~w o
o~ d
"
p ~ p ?~ d y ~
" ~'~
~
o y c
ti ~A CT C
~ o
U] U G ~
~
~ f-i A
d
~ , U C 6>
O OC/) C?
m
O F"'~'OC
"" O U .N
V
O e,O.i ~
F?~~"-~ L"ii r?r d
U
U O US"i Ul
J U L
cc
ado o m? ~c~
z, d C~.h-?a C d,
c O d~^o 0
//~~
U U y U~ 'd .U C
61 C". ~ d '~ ~ O
o w O ti V~ ??-~ d
"?' 0 0 0 m 0 dii w
bn
ce~ j a
cn CO
?- CA N G". U p `~
U FUi y d E
i 3 O O L a
m?- 0
O O d m
21 dCb~
y 0
d~ C
E~io~o
ut
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
rj~4 O
O U]
'O f. vd 6A ~ do ZO p O
G V cam. d CC 043- pOco
cq+~ ?c,' ~ o
? 0" 0'
O U OC O- omcc
41
0-4. 0
? O A O m b c3 O O y G y Q N by a O
4'. m
bJ)^~ ~
J ? m O a C : p ? O ? ' ? ? c, R+ O tin ^a cG a~
0 41 d.- C71
-Cs
51, CID X 44~
G O Fy n Sa y~ n i, cll ? }jp O ? U O
~4d O'OTv3+~ CI1+~ O m E U1?~~~~+~~
A... n 69 R+ a3 O C, a> e. v a9 m a d +~ R 5 ...
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
y y~C FI ~j
:d ~ _ La G f73 e,,.y Y~I
~j
a3- O ~' v' p O ~.~~^ a3 Or p i
rc~
vOi U ?O p C3" G" vy, c. O O
11 ;1 4Z
12 os
1 w O b a3 ^ O O w N p O _~ O f-i U G CYJ
GF*
ca ;I r. 4~
n c. F." U m O ~ ce c7 ~ ~ k bA a3 . ~ ~- ~
%~ m a9 O m GJ G a' d O ~1 y',~ ~ d a3 ...
0
R fie CA.r
Oa) CD Op
~' a' n f3 . ?~ a' i" ' c CI
O a3
y ~+
as g'.
m os
O .~ cy w G O a3
- y,ti ~w ~,p G y GOs
4 Py0 t~ (8 '21 O.O..C~c in4 CQ cd 0 4 O
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000700050002-2
78
.,~ O N ~, ~ N cd
y N cd O 4 C~~ p
pip ~ '-' ? ~n"S~+ ?~ '~' m ,--i n
O
clY
I ~ q V
O~ O Q~~ O O
G ~+~ y 024 (J
P~ ` r r, - w op~~ ;z y- .r=ice
co ~,?~~~ X30.0
0-0
F d?~ V ~~ ~~ V O F cd y 0 V O
CO o3 CS 41
qI 41 m bp ;S,
O
w b
~
Q~
ja7
y
Or y^
w
'm m C~ nCQ
cf)
Yr
dp O c3? y" Q PAC ?' ? ~+ GY Rte,
CAC~I~?~ b bA C^C Fr y ~'*" ~" V ,tips ~pOq V ? VC
> m -~--C~ RwA O d~TJ b .~ ?3 U O O
4k c 11
'GAn
~i w i/" V d w -v a3 O Q '~ G a3 . w F-1 !-~ +m a3
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 CIA-RDP75B00380R000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
a wy?~ V~m0O a
w uV m bA G1. ~ O O 'Q d Q w a3
a3
31N~ ~'r= V y-i~ c9
~o~a~...? 50,E a.oF
cq 'm
?~ U] ~~ .~'+ ~ Cad ,--i ? ^ ~ ~ . ti "" .V-~ ?r=' .Sa .~
E-+m?~ ooti'c;cav
-41
O O +' oy ~ ~: ~ ccs
n O r F O p O ~' d O
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
75
b0 ~o~ CEO W
~~'O
w U
O )
F~ E O U 00
n W~ d /'~ W~
O cad r O 6~~
a+~ CV Wd
f
~
v
- + ti
~
vcI N
~
~;.
O
?'~
Fir ~ N
W ~ N ~ A
A A ~
W ~ N t
W
Q" cj O
FUi
cd O
O'er
x,~ En M
E J' M
Wt,- O
Cl~
..Op _
~cdO.~E-I'!~A
N
v Aca o. ~O U
U
8 4
O
Ow o
bA uJ
o
to v G o O v U
y W GV
41 'r. e4l D
UambJD
I.t
c~.5 ~~ ~w~ A Ear q~
0 11'~ :tai co 10 ci
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
76
~ '~ ? Gh a o00
o ~+, s9 ?o ca -
CS P C~
CII a
o ~~ ~y y
c>
x o Cl
aixu .~ a~
c) C11
o~ H p.~3Q
cn Ci O
O F C z1 ~;, .~" O CL J ? O ^+ O ~s U
m o c~ oo c ~w m~~
~
o ca o
4 Gti
CI
. ate,
0O,
?
E
X*
0~C11
o
a3 ?~
p ca y~"j
z;
m
^d
'o
Ox v
Gam
O C
u
[~
'
? ~.L' +~?~
.'
~Q
~a.o
n
C
Z
41 cq
c) "Zi
10
CID cq -7,
Cd 75 "1'
O "" ?~ ? itj Q",~ r~i~ C ?~' ^ fig '~ O 4 Les ??~
~ m c0 r G v ~ ~ ~ ~ cC ~j c';~ ? O G (UZI) GV
o+dcq o ~ o o mU1 t~~ ~ oo~ o-
J oo~, o Z~~ cf`~ ano ocD ? ~.~cfl
~Q o~00 `~ " a3 o?
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
77
co
n cn z3 C +~ ? w O (Ja U r/ cl
0
? V Q'~~h
y `~ ,fig n C N +~ O U~ 'O O C O ~.., ? N
worn e ? y socv a ~w+
~tE o te"' bn nc0 ~,r; ti~ o ?a'
tan o o d -- c, ?
13) 0
~ ? +,
r , On 0
Tj)
44
v' O' c3 Ff3 w . CV di ?-.~~ +*~??I ,-i .`"Qi di O . - . - Uo
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
bA Z1 ~+ 47 "Z3 O 'LS r~ N "'~ Fr .,5 'Cj r~"'~ ' 0 U !~ m r/] ..~-i a
m~uy~~y~ NvdU~~o?o~~~c ~o ~cd~
O~ s A ~Q F 6C d~."" ? ~bA'^ m U~~ u b?A
4.1 cis cd c, u' ' ; ,~ ? ~" ~ a' +~ v m ?,~, ~~ c> ~
Z)J) -0 U) bp cn,5 C,
a~i BOAC/ Q ~" C Q 0 (V
O ua ~' y -. a~ O O O
A'+ ? Gam? Q" 67 O -~'' ~i +~ ~+ G' ;-Ui y ?.~ ? -~ -a~ ~.' `n ~cd
cad R. m BA ~ ' y a3 cyf ? s.. cd y `~ w ~ '~ '+~ cc a~ ~" ? .~ G~ Zi ' ~ ? v
t7" Off. ~+ ' ^ .-i c5 ~-~ m .~'. ? ? ?? - a) a k m Fir '~ N H O ~?
L, DO
+~ bA~ cB.A G) w p cd ? Ua p Q ? ??+ ZJ ~O 'C V 03 c.) +~ U
C) U 0 "0
sL., En
C5U1.~ X23 ~'O
C ern I '' ~"' U U ^" L f=~ FU-i O O Q ? O C cr
U v +~ C~ bAcG C c~ GC ? O ^d w r: h
OC~~
41
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
zs a~ ~ ~y ~ ~
c; cd
O h O a~
aJ V Fy a) ;_
~+-~ ~ ~i O (n ~,Li 43
~~~" .O R V ?_ A C1.
O V
V C3
n G:
CC,
v V~
Dy V r' q
'y~ r+~y~ a?~
o ? 6, a~ m
4.1
C'I
COO 0
a3 +~-' .r y?'
ad 4~ ^L7 b C1
C7 N aJ ~" O .^ry
~, bD y i a~ Ca+
CJ V DA CO + aFJ tr ? `+_'
W p cd C C] a3 O
`~ F+ a1 O a~ a>
cd Fi Fy aJ cn
?:ni Cjy by Rr"C ~ r
'>>..! g-I m- .O O .o d O - C~ = m I ? I G y 03 O
V cd a3 c3 V a~ ..~," a~ .tJ O ?a V m
ca4Ds ~.y -s aka
"t as
n C~ cd a~ O a3 V a m a~" a> o
41
F-I
rf)
V O ~~ a U O.G.F p cd
zi "-z
.y f--4 F?y at
a V V G ids V?- V E- O H
O
d -
C:) O U
? O C.7 V
C ,s"' d
a) o
`4 V C;; ? Fr O O arS :n OTC ~^?' ? O`'' ( O ~,' ~i Fy
O cad d ~' V C ?" -~ 'O ef3'~ ~y "C U p O ,s
10
C) Cc
~ rd O C) V _ V
! V ?+ C` cd ~ O ;? p a~J ti?i O V ~ ~ O O ts3 . ~
C) C~
V O o . m m y cd s. v m v
a/~' c'd O ~~-,, V Fy O ' ^' '~ O v ^7 cd
LO 0
r^y blJ' O d d Ge, I~ C=y
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
124 6
Approve*or helease 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000700050002-2
82
Summary of the construction authority approved by the House Armed Services
Committee in the fiscal year 1975 Military Construction Authorization Bill
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
State, Department or component, and name of installation Total
Alabama------------------------------------------ ------ $44,000,000
Army:
Anniston Army Depot -------------------------------- 7,648,000
Fort McClellan-------------- ----- 17, 344, 000
Fort Rucker __.-_-.._--------- 4,928,000
Redstone Arsenal --------------------------------------- 10, 322, 000
Air Force:
Maxwell AFB, Montgomery ----------------------------
3,758,000
Alaska-------- --------- ------ 33,333,000
Army :
Fort Grecly-------------------------------------------- 251,000
Fort Richardson------__ -------------------------- 1,732,000
Fort Wainwright----------------------------- ------- 11, 473, 000
Navy:
Naval Station, Ada] c---__-_____-_- ------------------- 4,605,000
Air Force:
Eielson AFB, Fairbanks ------------------------------ 310, 000
Various locations ------------------------------------- 14,962,000
Arizona --------------------------------- 12,006,000
Army:
Fort Huachuca----------------------------- ---------- 3,399,000
Yuma Proving Ground -------------------------------- 1,859,000
Navy:
Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma---------------------- 3,203,000
Air Force:
Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson -------------------------- 3,009,000
Williams AFB, Chandler ------------------------------- 536, 000
Arkansas-------- ----------------------------------- 5,816,000
Air Force:
Blytheville AFB, Blytheville-------------------------- 675, 000
Little Rock AFB, Little Rock------------------------- 5, 141, 000
California--------------------------------------------------- 141,902,000
Army:
Fort Ord-------------- 3,660,000
Ilunter-Liggett Military Reservation----------------- - 1, 108, 000
Presidio of Monterey--------------------------------- 3,107,000
Sacramento Army Depot ------------------------------ 2,599,000
Sierra Army Depot ---------------------------------- 717,000
Navy:
Naval Regional Medical Center, Camp Pendleton------- 10, 021, 000
Naval Weapons Center, China Lake ------------------- 8, 371, 000
Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach- - - - - - -- - - -- - - 6,011,000
Naval Air Station, Miramar__________________________ 11, 354, 000
Naval Air Station, North Island----------------------- 12, 050, 000
Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme- - _ _ 1,048,000
Naval Electronics Laboratory Center, San Diego -------- 3,238,000
Naval Regional Medical Center, Sar. Diego------------- 26, 375, 000
Navy Submarine Support Facility, San Diego ----------- 4,234,000
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach.------------------- 2,147,000
Naval Air Rework Facility, Alameda------------------ 1638, 000
Naval Hospital, L emoore----------------------------- 333, 000
Naval Air Station, Moffett Field---------------------- 77, 000
Marine Corps Supply Center, Barstow----------------- 1,463,000
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton------------------ 7,271,000
Approved ForImeY6 eB2FOWY 'Iogi`dA-IRop7.sBfl03-8flROO(Yf?VO b02-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75BOO38OR000700050002-2
83
Summary of the construction authority approved by the House Armed Services
Committee in the fiscal year 1975 Military Construction Authorization
Bill-Continued
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES-continued
State, Department or component, and name of installation
California-Continued
Air Force:
Total
Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles___________________
$9,000,000
Edwards AFB, Muroc--------------------------------
1, 198, 000
George AFB, Victorville------------------------------
3,846,000
Mather AFB, Sacramento____________________________
2, 143, 000
McClellan AFB, Sacramento__________________________
7,017,000
Travis AFB, Fairfield________________________________
8,800,000
Army:
Fort Carson----------------------------------------
27, 731, 000
Air Force:
Lowry AFB, Denver_________________________________
7,885,000
Peterson Field, Colorado Springs______________________
5,426,000
Connecticut------------------------------------------------
2,354,000
Navy:
Naval Submarine Base, New London ------------------
2,354,000
Delaware---------------------------------------------------
1,373,000
Air Force:
Dover AFB, Dover__________________________________
1, 373, 000
District of Columbia_________________________________________
8,117,000
Navy :
Naval District Commandant, Washington--------------
2,883,000
Naval Research Laboratory, Washington---------------
205,000
Marine Barracks, Washington-------------------------
1,874,000
Air Force:
Bolling AFB, Washington----------------------------
3, 155,000
Florida-----------------------------------------------------
69,079,000
Navy:
Naval Air Station, Cecil Field------------------------- 6, 893, 000
Naval Air Station, Jacksonville--------- ------------ 446, 000
Naval Regional Medical Center, Jacksonville ----------- 12, 413, 000
Naval Station, Mayport------------------------------ 3, 239, 000
Naval Training Center, Orlando----------------------- 4, 569, 000
Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory, Panama City------- 620, 000
Naval Air Station, Pensacola------------------------- 20, 948, 000
Naval Technical Training Center, Pensacola ------------ 4, 478, 000
Naval Air Station, Whiting Field---------------------- 11561,000
Air Force:
Eglin AFB, Valparaiso_______________________________ 10, 475, 000
Patrick AFB, Cocoa--------------------------------- 642,000
Tyndall AFB, Panama City__________________________ 2,775,000
Georgia ---------------------------------------------------- 89,441,000
Army:
Fort Benning--------------------------------------- 36,827,000
Fort Gordon---------------------------------------- 9,625000
Fort Stowart/Ilunter Army Airfield____________________ 42,197:000
Air Force:
Robins AFB, Warner Robins ------------------------- 792,000
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75BOO38OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
84
Summary of the construction authority approved by the House Armed Services
Committee in the fiscal year 1975 Military Construction Authorization
Bill--Continued
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES-continued
State, Department or component, and name of installation Total
Hawaii------------------------------------------------------ $38,641,000
Army:
Schofield Barracks-__. ------------------------------------ 15, 324, 000
Tripler General Hospital ----------------------------- 1,205,000
Navy :
Naval Ammunition Depot, Oahu ----------------------- 795, 000
Naval Station, Pearl Harbor ------ .--------------------- 1, 505, 000
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor------------- 3, 356, 000
Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay---------------- 5,497,000
Air Force:
Ilickam AFB, Honolulu ------------------------------- 10, 959, 000
Illinois_______________________ 24, 613, 000
Army: -- -
Rock Island Arsenal ---------------------------------- 2,731,000
Navy:
Naval Training Center, Great Lakes-------------------- 10, 164, 000
Air Force:
Chanute AFB, Rantoul ------------------------------- 6, 267,000
000
Scott AFB, Belleville ------------- -------------------- 5, 451, 000
Indiana----------------------------------------------------- 323,000
Air Force:
Grissom AFB, Peru ---------------------------------- 323, 000
Kansas - --------------------------------- 38,073,000
Army:
Fort Leavenworth___________________________________ 9,911,000
Fort Riley------------------------------------------ 24,478,000
Air Force:
McConnell AFB, Wichita____________________________ 3, 038, 000
Defense Supply Agency:
Defense Industrial Plant Equipment Facility, Atchinson646, 000
Kentucky-------------------------------------------------- 12,622,000
Army :
Fort Campbell______________________________________ 9,742,000
Fort Knox_________________ 2,264,000
Lexington/Blue Grass Army Depot -------------------- 616, 000
--==-=-_---- -
Louisiana --------------------------------------------------- 11, 025, 000
Army: -- -
Fort Polk------------------------------------------ 7,304,000
Navy:
Naval Support Activity, New Orleans ------------------ 3,080,000
Air Force:
Barksdale AFB, Shreveport___________________________ 641, 000
Maine ---
2,848,000
Naval Air Station, Brunswick -------------------------- 261, 000
Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor- _ - ------ 255, 000
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ 2,332,000
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
Summary of the construction authority approved by the House Armed Services
Committee in the fiscal year 1975 Military Construction Authorization
Bill-Continued
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES-Continued
State, Department or component, and name of installation Total
Maryland--------------------------------------------------- $42,000,000
Army:
Fort Detrick---------------------------------------- 486,000
Fort Ritchie---------------------------------------- 2,023,000
Navy:
Naval Academy, Annapolis--------------------------- 1, 256, 000
National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda-------------- 14,943, 000
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences,
Bethesda-----------------------------------------
15,000,000
Air Force:
Andrews AFB, Camp Springs-------------------------
5, 929, 000
National Security Agency:
Fort George G. Meade-------------------------------
2,363,000
Michigan---------------------------------------------------
7,885,000
Air Force: Kincheloe AFB, Kinross------------------------
835, 000
K. I. Sawyer AFB, Marquette------------------------
7, 050, 000
Mississippi--------------------------------------------------
8,951,000
Navy:
Naval Air Station, Meridian--------------------------
1,485,000
Air Force:
Columbus AFB, Columbus---------------------------
169, 000
Keesler AFB, Biloxi---------------------------------
7,297,000
Army:
Fort Leonard Wood---------------------------------
3,360,000
Air Force:
Richard-Gebaur AFB, Grandview---------------------
805, 000
Whiteman AFB, Knob Nester------------------------
6,692,000
Defense Mapping Agency:
DMA Aerospace Center (St. Louis AFS), St. Louis------
2, 573, 000
Montana---------------------------------------------------
3,740,000
Air Force:
Malmstrom AFB, Great Falls-------------------------
3,740,000
Nebraska---------------------------------------------------
5,595,000
Air Force:
Offutt AFB, Omaha--------------------------------- 5, 595, 000
Nevada---------------------------------------------------- 6,495, 000
Air Force:
Nellis AFB, Las Vegas------------------------------- 6, 495, 000
New Hamsphire--------------------------------------------- 2,630,000
Army:
Cold Regions Laboratories---------------------------- 2,515,000
Air Force:
Pease AFB, Portsmouth------------------------------ 115,000
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75BOO38OR000700050002-2
86
Summary of the construction authority approved by the House Armed Services
Committee in the fiscal year 1975 Military Construction Authorization
Bill-Continued
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES--Continued
State, Department or component, and name of installation Total
New Jersey------------------------------------------------- $10, 578, 000
Army:
Picatinny Arsenal-_-__ ___________________________ 2,820,000
Navy:
Naval Air Test Facility, Lakehurst --------------------- 7,350,000
Air Force:
McGuire AFB, Wrightstown__________________________ 408, 000
New Mexico------------------------------------------------- 4,222,000
Army:
White Sands Missile Range___________________________ 1,542,000
Air Force :
Cannon AFB, Clovis_________________________________ 833,000
Holloman AFB, Alamogordo__________________________ 1,565,000
Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque__________________________ 232,000
New York--------------------------------------------------- 14,447,000
Army:
Seneca Army Depot --------------------------------- 815,000
U.S. Military Academy______________________________ 7,720,000
Watervliet Arsenal ---------------------------------- 3,256, 000
Air Force:
Griffiss AFB, Rome__________________________________ 1,774,000
Plattsburgh AFB, Plattsburgh________________________ 882,000
North Carolina---------------------------------------------- 47,013,000
Army:
Fort Bragg----------------------------------------- 26,170,000
Navy:
Naval Regional Medical Center, Camp Lejeune--------- 290, 000
Naval Air Rework Facility, Cherry Point--------------- 252, 000
Marine Corps Air Station, New River------------------ 499, 000
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune-------------------- 13 864, 000
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point---------------- 1, 260, 000
Air Force:
Pope AFB, Fayetteville ------------------------------ 730, 000
Seymour-Johnson AFB, Goldsboro--------------------- 3,948,000
North Dakota------------------------------------------------ 238,000
Air Force:
Minot AFB, Minot__________________________________ 238,000
Ohio------------ ------------------------------------ 14,782,000
Air Force:
Newark AFS, Newark________________________________ 1,977,000
Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton_______________________ 10,371,000
Defense Supply Agency:
Defense Construction Supply Center, Columbus--------- 1,S62,000
Defense Electronics Supply Center, Dayton_____________ 572,000
Oklahoma-------------------------------------------------- 27,424,000
Army:
Fort Sill----- --------------------------------- 15,587,000
Air Force:
Tinker AFB, Oklahoma City -------------------------- 9,839,000
r
Approved Fu"rePZaF is `10051Ofs/O9-. CFA=RDP7-51300380RO067MOM002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
Summary of the construction authority approved by the house Armed Services
Committee in the fiscal year 1975 Military Construction Authorization
Bill-Continued
INSIDE THE UNITED STATEs-continued
and name of installation Total
Department or component
State
,
,
Pennsylvania-----------------------------------------------
$6,352,000
Army:
Letterkenny Army Depot-----------------------------
4,726,000
Navy:
Naval Hospital, Philadelphia--------------------------
296,000
Defense Supply Agency:
Defense Depot, Mechanicsburg------------------------
394,000
Defense Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia---------
936,000
Rhode Island-----------------------------------------------
2,582,000
Navy:
Naval Education and Training Center, Newport---------
2,582,000
South Carolina----------------------------------------------
45,356,000
Army:
Fort Jackson----------------------------------------
19,078,000
Navy:
Naval Hospital, Beaufort-----------------------------
7,112,000
Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston----------------
200,000
Naval Station, Ciarleston----------------------------
15,352,000
Naval Supply Center, Charleston----------------------
3,750,000
Naval Weapons Station, Charleston--------------------
2,564,000
Air Force:
Myrtle Beach AFB, Myrtle Beach---------------------
300,000
South Dakota-----------------------------------------------
10,105,000
Air Force:
Ellsworth AFB, Rapid City ---------------------------
10 105 000
Tennessee --------------------------------------------------
53,923,000
Navy:
Naval Air Station, Memphis--------------------------- 4, 284, 000
Air Force:
Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tullahoma- - - - - 48, 240, 000
Defense Supply Agency:
Defense Depot, Memphis----------------------------- 1, 399, 000
Texas------------------------------------------------------ 77,682,000
Army:
Aeronautical Maintenance Center---------------------- 541, 000
Fort Bliss------------------------------------------ 13,704,000
FortIlood------------------------------------------ 40,214,000
FortSam Ilouston----------------------------------- 4,286,000
Red River Army Depot------------------------------- 269,000
Navy:
Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi--------------------- 1, 830, 000
Naval Air Station, Kingsville------------------------- 1, 428, 000
Air Force:
Kelly AFB, San Antonio----------------------------- 4, 079, 000
Laughlin AFB, Del Rio------------------------------ 298, 000
Randolph AFB, San Antonio------------------------- 790, 000
Reese AFB, Lubbock--------------------------------- 836,000
Sheppard AFB, Wichita Falls------------------------- 8, 631, 000
Webb AFB, Big Spring------------------------------- 776, 000
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
Summary of the construction authority approved by the House Armed Services
Committee in the fiscal year 1975 Military Consiruction Authorization
Bitt-Continued
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES--continued
State, Department or component, and name of installation Total
Utah--------------------------- --------------- $12,421,000
Air Force:
hill AFB, Ogden------------------------------------ 11, 894, 000
Defense Supply Agency:
Defense Depot, Ogden ------------------------------- 527,000
Virginia---------------------------------------------------- 78,268,000
Army :
Fort Belvoir---------------------------------------- 9,031,000
Fort Eustis---------------------------------------- 9,288,000
Fort Lee------------------------------------------- 5,218,000
Fort Myer----------------------------------------- 2,497,000
Navy:
Fleet Combat Direction Systems Training Center, Dam
Neck -------------------------------------------- 2,034,000
Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek ------------------ 896, 000
Atlantic Command Operations Control Center, Norfolk_ _ 633, 000
Naval Air Station, Norfolk___________________________ 2,900,000
Naval Station, Norfolk------------------------------ 8,364,000
Naval Supply Center, Norfolk________________________ 4,990,000
Norfolk Naval Regional Medical Center, Portsmouth- _ _ _ 15, 801, 000
Naval Air Station, Oceana___________________________ 1,047,000
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth__________________ 5, 602, 000
Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown -------------------- 3,438,000
Marine Corps Development and Education Command,
Quantico------------------------------------------ 2,803,000
Air Force:
Langley AFB, Hampton_____________________________ 3,056, 000
Defense Mapping Agency:
Fort Belvoir----------------------------------------- 670,000
Washington ------------------------------ 107,864,000
Army:
Fort Lewis----------------------------------------- 10,270,000
Navy:
Trident Support Site, Bangor------------------------- 95, 000, 000
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton -------------- 393, 000
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island-------------------- 2,201,000
Various locations (Zone of Interior)____________________________ 42, 501, 000
Army:
Various--------------------------------------------- 27,323,000
Air Force:
Various-------------------------------------------- 15,178,000
Classified (Zone of Interior) _.--------------------------------- 2,800,000
Air Force:
Various-------------------------------------------- 2,800,000
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Bermuda--------------------------------------------------- 1, 866,000
Navy:
Naval Air Station, Bermuda----------------------------- ------ 1,866,000
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
89
Summary of the construction authority approved by the House Armed Services
Committee in the fiscal year 1975 Military Construction Authorization
Bill-Continued
OUTSIDE THE UNITED ST,ATES-continued
State, Department or component, and name of installation Total
Canal Zone------------------------------------------------- $1,124,000
Army:
Panama Area--------------------------------------- 324,000
NavNaval Support Activity------------------------------ 800, 000
Chagos Archipelago------------------------------------------ 29,000,000
NavNaval Communication Facility, Diego Garcia----------- 29, 000, 000
Germany--------------------------------------------------- 25,280,000
Army:
Various locations------------------------------------ 25, 000, 000
Air Force:
Various locations------------------------------------ 280,000
Guam------------------------------------------------------ 1,262,000
Navy:
Naval Communication Station, Finegayan-------------- 355, 000
Navy Public Works Center--------------------------- 907,000
Iceland----------------------------------------------------- 2,317,000
Navy:
Naval Station, Keflavik------------------------------ 2,317,000
Army:
Darby ----------------------------------------- 4, 159, 000
Johnston Atoll---------------------------------------------- 1,458,000
Defense Nuclear Agency:
Various locations------------------------------------ 1,458,000
Korea------------------------------------------------------ 1,663,000
Army :
Various locations------------------------------------ 1,663,000
Kwajalein Island-------------------------------------------- 1,272,000
Army:
Kwajalein Missile Range----------------------------- 1,272,000
Okinawa--------------------------------------------------- 532,000
Army:
Fort Buckner--------------------------------------- 532,000
Puerto Rico------------------------- ---------------------- 5,159,000
Navy:
aval Telecommunications Center, Roosevelt Roads----- 3,186, 000
Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads----------------------- 947,000
Naval Security Group Activity, Sabana Seca------------ 1,026,000
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
90
Summary of the construction authority approved by the House Armed Services
Committee in the fiscal year 1975 Military Construction Authorization
Bill-Continued
State, Department or component, and name of installation Total
Republic of the Philippines -----------------------------------
$8,071,000
Navy:
Naval Air Station, Cubi Point ------------------------
4,052,000
Naval Hospital, Subic Bay---------------------------
278,000
Naval Station, Subic Bay -----------------------------
3,741,000
United Kingdom --------------------------------------------
2,643,000
Navy:
Naval Security Group Activity, Edzell, Scotland---------
571,000
Naval Activities Detachment, Holy Loch, Scotland-_-_--
1,188,000
Air Force:
Various locations -------------------------------------
884,000
Army:
Various---------------------------------------------
88,148,000
Air Force:
Various---------------------------------------------
74,165,000
Classified (overseas) ---------------_______-_--__-__---
5,300,000
Air Force:
Various---------------------------------------------
5,300,000
Office, Secretary of Defense:
Various---------------------------------------------
15,000,000
Reserve components----------------------------------------- 152,267,000
Army National Guard:
Various---------------------------------------------
53,800,000
Army Reserve:
Various---------------------------------------------
38,600,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve:
Various---------------------------------------------
19,867,000
Air National Guard:
Various---------------------------------------------
26,000,000
Air Force Reserve:
Various---------------------------------------------
14,000,000
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
91
SUMMARY OF THE AIR AND WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY APPROVED BY THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1975 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION
BILL
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Cost State total
State, department or component, and name of - -- -
installation Air W&ter Air Water
Arizona------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $970,000
Air Force:
Luke AFB, Gila Bend------------------------------------- $421,000 ------------ ---------------
Williams AFB, Chandler------------------------------------ 549,000 ---------- _________________.
Arkansas-------------------------------------------------------- --------------- 500,000
Army:
Fort Chaffee---------------------------------------------- 213,000
Air Force:
Little Rock AFB, Little Rock________________________________ 287,000 --------------------- _------
California ---------------------------------------------------------------------- $4,459,000 7,135,000
Army:
Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation__________________________ 113,000 ------------- ___-____
Fort Ord----------- ------------------------------------ 362,000 ----------------------------
Presidio of San Francisco__________________________________ 81,000 --------- _----------- ____-_-
Navy:
Naval Air Station, North Island_______________ $542,000 ----------------------------------- _______
Naval Air Rework Facility, North Island -------- 818,000 ----------- _____------------------ _.......
Naval Supply Center, San Diego_______________ 360,000 2,453,000 ----------------------------
Naval Air Rework Facility, Alameda ----------- 1,667,000 ------------------------------------------
Naval Weapons Station, Concord____________________________ 626,000 ----- _--------- -____________
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton---------- 231,000 1,935,600 --------------- ________
Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro_____________ 195,000 ------------------------ -_________-__-____
Marine Corps Air Station, Santa Ana ----------- 87,000 ____________________------------ __________
Air Force?
Castle AFB, Merced------------------------- 184,000 -----?------------------------------------
George AFB, Victorville------------------------------------ 1,470,000 ___-________________________
March AFB, Riverside----------------------- 375,000 -----------------------------------------
Norwalk AF POL Retail Distribution Station,
Norwalk----------------------------------------------- 95,000 ---------------------------
Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------- 514,000
Army:
Fort Carson --------------------------------------------- 514,000 ---------------------------
Connecticut---------------------------- ------------------------------ ------- 442,000 --------------
Navy:
Naval Submarine Base, New London__________ 442,000 ----------------------------------- -
Delaware Delaware--------------------------------------------- --- -------- ------------------------ 101,000
Air Force:
Dover AFB, Dover------------------------------- -------- 101,000 ----------------------------
District of Columbia--------------------------------------------------------- 305,000 --------------
Army:
Walter Reed Army Medical Center_____________ 305,000 ------------------------------------------
Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,078,000 2,603,000
Navy:
Naval 894,000 ----------------------------
Naval Air Station, Cecil Field______________________________-------------------------------------------
Naval Air Station,Jacksonville ---------------- 99,000 Station, Mayport--------------------- 893, 000 _----------------------------------
NavalCoastal Systems Laboratory, Panama City --------------- 267,000 ----------------------------
Naval Air Station, Pensacola_______________________________ 826,000 ----------------------------
Air Force:
MacOill AFB,Tampa ------------ ------------------------ 616,000 ----------------------------
Tampa Air Force Retail Distribution Station,
---
GeorgiaTampa-------------------------- ------ 86,000 ------------------------- 333, - 000
--------------------------------------- ------------------------- 1,
Army:
Fort Benning--------------------------------------------- 710,000 ---------------------------
Fort Gordon -------------------------------------------- 268,000 ----------------------------
Air Force:
Hawaii-- Moody AFB, Valdosta------------------------------------- 355,000 ---------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------_ 6,549,000
Navy:
Naval Station, Pearl Harbor________________________________ 4,896,000 _______________-------------
Naval Supply Center, Pearl Harbor__________________________ 1,653,000 ----- -------- .__.__________
Illinois----------------------------------------------------------------- ------ 1,027,000 2,560,000
Army:
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant________________ 500,000 -------------------------- -___________-___
Fort Sheridan--------------------------------------------- 52,000 ----------------------------
Navy:
Naval Training Center, Great Lakes___________ 527,000 --------- --------- ---------- ________
Air Force:
Chanute AFB, Rantoul-. ----------------------------------- 2,508,000 ----------------------------
Indiana------------------------------------------------------------------------ 260,000 665,000
Navy:
Naval Ammunition Depot, Crane______________ 260,000 665,000 --------------- Kentucky -------------------------------------------------------------------- 164,000 1,948,000
ArmyFortCampbell -------------------------------------------- 1,948,000 ----------------------------
Fort Knox---------------------------------- 164,000 ------------------------------------------
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
92
SUMMARY OF THE AIR AND WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY APPROVED BY THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1975 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION
BILL-Continued
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES-Continued
Cost State total
State, department or component, and name of
installation Air Water Air Wate r
Louisiana____.,______________ ------------------------------------------------ $515,000 $1,544,000
Army:
Fort Polk---------------------------------------------- $1, 544, COO ----------------------------
Air Force:
Barksdale AFB, Shreveport------------------ $450,000 -------------------------------------------
England AFB, Alexandria ----- _-------------- 65,000 ------------------ ---- -____
290, 000
Air Force:
Loring Maryland AFB, Limestone ______________ 290,000 _____ 2;____945, _ 00D0
---------------------- 00-------- 63355, 000
- 000
Navy:
Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River_______________________ 635,0)0 ----------------------------
N a va l Ordnance Station, Indian Head ---------- 2,945,000 _ ____ -=___-------------------------------
Michigan----------------- ____------------- 2,046,000
Air Force:
K. I. Sawyer AFR,Marquette ------------------------ ______ 2,046,000 ----------------------------
I MissAir F -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,216,000
Air Force: Keesler AFB, Biloxi----------------- ----------------- ----- 2,216,0)0 ----------------------------
Army: 3,980,000
---------------
Fort Leonard Wood ---------------------------------------- 3, 980, 0110 ------------------------- --
Nevada------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7,022,000
Navy:
Naval Ammunition Depot, Hawthorne________________________ 7,022,000 -------------------
New Hampshire ----- 639, 000
------------------------
Air Force:
Pease AFB, Portsmouth______________ _ 639,000 -------- .-_____
New Jersey--------------------------------------------- 416,000
----- - ------------------
Army:
Picatinny Arsenal--------------------------------------- 416,0DO ----------------------------
New York ---------------------------------------- --- -- - - - --- ---------------- 387,000 343,000
Army:
U.S. Military Academy________-__-__-__--__ 387,000 ------------------------------------------
Air Force:
Griffiss AFB, Rome ---------------------------------------- 343,000 ------------------------
North Carolina ---------------------------------- -------------------- --------------------- 1,503,000
Navy:
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune__________________________ 1,068,000 ----------------------------
M arine Ohio Corps Air Station, New River ------------------------ 435,000 --------- __
______________ 7,717,000 ------- 537,000
Force:
Air
Cincinnati Air Force POL Retail Distribution
Station----------------------------------- 140,000 ------------------------------------------
Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton________________ 7,577,000 537,000__-___________
klamy 2,527,000
Army:
Fort Sill------------------------------------------------- 2,104,030 --------------------------
Air Force:
Tinker AFB, Oklahoma City______________________ -------------------------------- 423,030 ----------------------------
Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- 2,726,000
Army:
Letterkenny Army Depot------------- ----------- 183,0)0 ----------------------------
Navy:
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia___________________ 2,543,070 ___________________-__-___--
South Carolina ----------------------------------- --------------------- -------- 783,000 6,492,000
Navy:
Naval Supply Center, Charleston --------------------- ______ 495,000 ----------------------------
Charleston Naval Shipyard,Charleston -------_- 783,000 4,217,000 ----------------------------
Naval Weapons Station, Charleston ------------------- ------ 1,360,000 ----------------------------
Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island ------------- . ______ 280,0110 ----------------------------
Air Force:
Charleston AF POL Retail Distribution Station,
Charleston --------------------------------------------- 140,0[0 ----------------------------
Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------- --------------------181,000
Army:
Milan Army Ammunition Plant_____________________ 181,0(0 ----------------------------
Texas ------------------------------------------------- _ _ - ------ 279,000 804,000
Army:
Fort Hood------------------------------------------------ 98,0[0 ------------------------ ---
Longhorn AAP-------------------------------------------- 102,CC0 ----------------------
Air Force:
Laughlin AFB, Del Rio------------------------------------- 604,000 ----------------------------
Randolph AFB, San Antonio__________________ 172,000 ------------- ________________________-___
Kelly AFB, San Antonio---------------------- 107,000 ----------------------------------- ------
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
SUMMARY OF THE AIR AND WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY APPROVED BY THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1975 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION
BILL-Continued
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES-Continued
Cost State total
State, department or component, and name of ------------ ------------
installation Air Water Air Water
Virginia -------------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------- $12,778,000
Army:
Fort Belvoir -------------------------------------------- $932,000 ----------------------------
Fort Eustis----------------------------------------------- 155,000 ----------------------------
Fort Lee---------- -------------------------------------- 60,000 ----------------------------
Camp Pickett-------------------------------------------- 173,000 ----------------------------
Navy:
Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek________________________ 2,740,000 ___.___________--___________
Naval Supply Center, Norfolk_______________________________ 5,647,000 ------------- --------------
Marine Corps Development and Education Com-
mand, Quantico----------------------------------------- 1,711,000 ----------------------------
Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown___________________________ 1,300,000 ________________-____-______
Washington---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 652,000
Army:
Fort Lewis----------------------------------------------- 69,000 ---------------------------
Navy:
Naval Supply Center, Bremerton____________________________ 259,000 __-___________-_______-____.
Naval Torpedo Station, Keyport_____________________________ 264,000 ------_-----------------
Air Force:
Mukiltoo AF POL Retail Distribution Station, Everett________60,000 --------- _________
Various locations (inside the United States)______________________________________________________ 2,100,000
Army:
Various ------------------------------------------------- 2,100,000 ----------------------------
Inside the United States, total Army_______________________________________________ $1,356,000 16,358,000
Inside the United States, total Navy_______________________________________________ 9,849,000 44,251,000
Inside the United States, total Air Force___________________ ______________________ 9,156,000 13,700,000
-------------------------
Inside the United States, grand total_________________________________________ 20,361,000 74,309,000
Guam-------------------------------------------------------------------------- $1,059,000--------------
Navy:
Navy Public Works Center, Guam_____________ $1,059,000 ___________________-----------------------
Japan-- $595,000
Air Force:
Misawa AB---------------------------------------------- $595,000 -----------------------------
Scotland, United Kingdom--------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,650,000
Navy:
Naval Detachment, Holy Loch_______________________________ 2,650,000 ---------------------
Puerto Rico---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,388,000
Navy:
Navat Station, Roosevelt Roads_____________________________ 1,388,000 ---------- ------- _........
Outside the United States, total Navy______________________________________________ 1,059,000 4,038,000
Outside the United States, total Air Force________________________________________________________ 595,000
Outside the United States, grand total____________1,059,000 4,633,000
Worldwide grand total, Army ----------------------------------------------------- 1,356,000 16,358,000
Worldwide grand total, Navy_____________________________________________________ 10,908,000 48,289,000
Worldwide grand total, Air Force__________________________________________________ 9,156,000 14,295,000
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2
Summary of the military family housing new construction authority approved by the
House Armed Services Committee in the fiscal year 1975 military construction
authorization bill
State, service, and installation:
California:
Number
Navy:
of units
Naval complex, San Diego --------------------------------
500
Florida:
Navy:
Naval complex, Jacksonville ------------------------------
200
Georgia
Army:
Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield ----------------------
400
Hawaii:
Air Force:
U.S. Air Force installations, Oahu ------------------------
200
Kansas:
Army:
Fort Riley----------------------------------------------
100
Kentucky:
Army:
Fort Campbell ------------------------------------------
1, 000
Louisiana:
Navy:
Naval complex, New Orleans -----------------------------
200
New Hampshire:
Air Force:
Pease Air Force Base ------- -.----_____-_-.______________
100
North Carolina:
Navy:
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point__________________
300
Oklahoma:
Air Force:
Altus Air Force Base -------------------------------------
100
South Carolina:
Navy:
Naval complex, Charleston__- -----------------------------
350
Virginia:
Army:
Fort Eustis---------------------------------------------
100
Washington:
Navy:
Naval complex, Bremerton_____________________________
300
Canal Zone:
Army:
Atlantic side-------------------------------------------
100
Pacific side-------------------------------------------
200
Cuba:
Navy:
Naval complex, Guantanamo :Bay____-_---.______________
200
Japan:
Air Force:
Misawa Air Base--------------------------------------
200
Okinawa:
Air Force:
Kadena Air Base--------------------------------------
300
Philippines :
Air Force:
Clark Air Base----------------------------------------
500
Poland:
DIA:
Defense Attache Office, Warsaw_________________________
2
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700050002-2