MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATION BILL, 1976

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 90
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 6, 2005
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: November 3, 1975
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
Calendar No. 42T
94TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT 1'
1st Session j No. 94-442
ON BILL, 1976
NOVEMBER 3, 1975.-Ordered to be printed
Mr. MANSFIELD, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 10029] ` (\ \ nc ! UV
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill
(H.R. 10029) making appropriations for military construction for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, and
the period ending September 30, 1976, and for other purposes, reports
the same to the Senate with various amendments, and presents here-
with information relative to the changes made:
Amount of bill passed by House------------------ $3,518,723,000
Amount of increase by Senate over the House--.----
141,
572,
000
Total of bill as reported to Senate----------
3,
660,
295,
000
Amount of 1976 budget estimate -----------------
4,
109,
020,
000
Amount of 1975 appropriations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3,
084,
789,
000
The bill as reported to the Senate:
Below the budget estimate, 1976-------------
448,
725,
000
Above appropriations for fiscal year 1975 ------
575,
506,
000
Budget transition period_________________________
359,
100,
000
*(Star Print) 57-010 o
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
2
GENERAL STATEMENT
For military construction for the Active Forces of the Department
of the Army, the Committee recommends an amount totaling $812,-
942,000. This is an increase of $24,605,000 from the amount of $788,-
337,000 approved by the House, and a decrease of $144,958,000 from
the budget estimate of $957,900,000. The Committee recommends
approval of the requested $37,100,000 for the budget transition period.
For military construction for the Active Forces of the Department
of the Navy, the Committee recommends an amount totaling $799,-
326,000. This is an increase of $70,599,000 from the $728,727,000
allowed by the House and a decrease of $54,674,000 from the budget
estimate of $854,000,000. The Committee recommends approval of
$17,200,000, the requested amount for the budget transition period.
For military construction for the Active Forces of the Department
of the Air Force, the Committee recommends an amount totaling
$553,700,000. This is a increase of $12,421,000 from the $541,279,000
allowed by the House and a decrease of $149,900,000 from the budget
estimate of $703,600,000. The Committee recommends $14,000,000,
the requested amount for the transition period.
For the Army National Guard, the Committee approved $62,700,-
000 and approval was given for the Army Reserve in the amount of
$50,300,000, the budget estimate. The Committee recommends ap-
proval of the requested $1,500,000 for the Army National Guard and
$2,500,000 for the Army Reserve for the budget transition period.
For the Naval Reserve, the Committee recommends an appropria-
tion of $36,400,000, the same amount as the budget estimate. The
Committee recommends approval of $400,000, the amount requested
by the Naval Reserve for the budget transition period.
For the Air Force Reserve, the Committee recommends an appro-
priation of $18,000,000. The Committee recommends approval of the
requested $1,000,000 for the budget transition period.
For the Air National Guard, the Committee recommends an appro-
priation of $63,000,000. The Committee recommends approval of the
requested $1,000,000 for the budget transition period.
For the Department of Defense agencies, the Committee recom-
mends an appropriation of $39,300,000. This is $102,200,000 below
the budget estimate of $141,500,000, and is $20,000,000 above the
House allowance. The amount appropriated plus the application of
$12,831,000 of available prior year funds recognizes a program breakout
as follows: Defense Mapping Agency, $195,000; Defense Nuclear
Agency, $24,033,000; National Security Agency, $3,012,000; and the
Defense Supply Agency, $8,391,000. The Committee also recom-
mends for the Department of Defense general support programs a
total of $6,500,000, including planning and design; and, for the
Office of Secretary of Defense emergency fund, $10,000,000. The
Committee recommends approval of the requested $1,000,000 for
the budget transition period.
For Family Housing, the Committee recommends an appropriation
of $1,332,244,000. This is $3,007,000 above the budget estimate of
$1,329,237,000 and is $12,382,000 above the house allowance. The
Committee recommends approval of the requested $310,639,000 for
the budget transition period.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
3
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
In evaluating the FY 1976 Military Construction Program, the
Committee sought to bring to the floor a Military Construction Pro-
gram designed to provide appropriations at the minimum amount
necessary to assure a sound military platform to support our defense
forces. An extensive project by project review was conducted to assure
that only those projects of immediate urgency are to be financed
under this Bill.
In this year's Bill various areas have been stressed by the Services.
Because requirements of each service are unique, one Service may
place more emphasis than the other on a particular facilities require-
ment. Areas investigated and reported on for FY 1976 are: Bachelor
Housing, Hospital Programs, Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Mainte-
nance Facilities, Construction Backlog, Pollution Abatement, Impact
of Inflation, TRIDENT Submarine Support Site, Naval Air Engi-
neering Center, Lakehurst, N.J., Access Roads, Naval District
Washington, Naval Support Facility, Diego Garcia, Flight Simulators,
NATO Infrastructure, Family Housing Turnkey, Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone, Aircraft Protective Shelters, Army Division
Stationing, Offset Agreement-Federal Republic of Germany, Planning
and Design, Minor Construction and Reserve Forces. A capsule
discussion of these program. highlights follows:
The Committee notes that the Army has given priority again this
year to the improvement of living conditions for bachelor enlisted
personnel. Major improvement of bachelor living conditions started
with the fiscal year 1972 construction program. At that time only about
21 percent of the Army's assets were adequate. Those adequate assets
consisted mainly of trainee barracks, for which open bays are ade-
quate, and cadre rooms in the open bay barracks. Through fiscal year
1975 over $935 million has been authorized to construct or modernize
bachelor housing spaces and today, adequate assets are available
for about 45 percent of the eligible personnel. Completion of all bar-
racks projects approved through fiscal year 1975 will provide about
75 percent of the Army's required adequate spaces. These projects
should be completed in 1978.
The fiscal year 1976 request provides for the construction of 17,733
new bachelor enlisted spaces and 126 new bachelor officer spaces as
well as the modernization of 9,062 existing bachelor enlisted spaces.
The officer spaces and 1,166 of the enlisted spaces are programed for
Korea with the remainder of the spaces being inside the 'United States.
Emphasis has been placed on installations in the United States that
support the Division stationing and one station training concepts.
Upon completion of the projects requested in this year's program,
adequate quarters will be available for approximately 80 percent of
the Army's bachelor personnel.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
4
The Navy is continuing to emphasize improvement in bachelor
housing. The fiscal year 1976 program requested 3,014 new spaces
for bachelor enlisted personnel and the modernization of 325 enlisted
spaces. Another 132 new spaces were requested for bachelor officers.
The Navy's now bachelor enlisted quarters design offers increased
privacy, security and comfort to the member. In addition, maximum
occupancy is afforded as the spaces are designed in such a way that
they can be used interchangeably to fulfill any requirement regardless
of rate. The Marine Corps program requested 2,457 spaces, all of which
is new construction for enlisted personnel. The total Navy/Marine
Corps bachelor housing program request was $56,521,000 which is 7.2
percent of the Military Construction budget.
The Committee recommends approval of $41,335,000 for bachelor
housing projects which will provide the following spaces:
Bachelor enlisted:
New ---------------------------------------------
2, 2,074
2, 529
4,603
Modernization------------------------ -----------------------
0
0
0
Total------------------------------------------------------
Bachelor officer:
New---------------------------------------------------------
Modernization------------------------------------------------
Totai------------------------------------------------------
Breakdown of approved Navy/Marine Corps Bachelor Enlisted
Quarters Program by Rate Structure:
E-2 to E4-----------------------------------------
1,659
2,325
3,984
86.6
E-5 to E-6 -----------------------------------------
366
154
520
11.3
E-7 to E-9-----------------------------------------
49
50
99
2.1
The Air Force is progressing in its program to upgrade and modern-
ize bachelor housing. There is a current programmable deficit of 6,100
officer and 21,900 enlisted spaces. In addition, 4,600 officer and 55,600
enlisted spaces require upgrading and modernization. In fiscal year
1975, funds were provided to build 40 officer and 4,098 enlisted new
spaces and to upgrade an additional 40 officer and 4,567 enlisted spaces.
The current bill requests new spaces for 400 officers and 2,640 enlisted
and upgrade of existing spaces for 2,480 enlisted. While the Air Force is
devoting considerable resources to upgrade their bachelor housing
inventory, adequate housing for all airmen continues to be several
years away.
The $51.3 million requested in this year's program represents an
$8.2 million increase over last year's program; however, it remains a
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
modest program in relation to their overall upgrade and modernization
requirements. The deficiency in new spaces will require approximately
$309 million and upgrade and modernization will require an addi-
tional $560 million. The Air Force Construction Program primarily
provides on-base housing for E4's and below; all personnel at isolated
locations; and for students and transients at other locations. They
plan new construction for E5's and above when the local community
does not provide adequate housing and modernization and upgrade of
existing buildings is planned for the same personnel on a selected
basis.
The fiscal year 1976 program is the second major increment of the
Army's accelerated health facilities modernization program, reflecting
a $13.0 million increase over the fiscal year 1975 appropriation of
$68.0 million. Included in the program are two hospital additions, one
health clinic, eight dental clmics, and an increase for one project
presently under construction.
The Army continues to pursue the objectives of its modernization
program through the hospital clinic additions, which are needed as a
result of both the increase in eligible beneficiaries in recent years and
the continuing trend in both civilian and military medicine toward
more outpatient care and decreased hospitalization. Where appro-
priate, addition projects have included alterations and upgrade to
meet the requirements of more advanced fire protection techniques,
the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and of the Joint Committee
on Accreditation of Hospitals. Rapid technological change since the
construction of existing permanent hospitals has also necessitated
upgrade of the electrical and mechanical systems of those hospitals
with addition and alteration projects.
The Army continues its program to replace the large number of
temporary World War II dental clinics as well as to fulfill requirements
for additional dental clinics at many stations.
The medical portion of the Navy's fiscal year 1976 Military Con-
struction Program has been developed as the third year of a multiyear
accelerated program to correct medical/dental facility deficiencies
through modernization or replacement. This program was initiated
by the Secretary of Defense in response to the serious need to upgrade
health care facilities to assure effective delivery of high-quality health
care. The goal of the medical modernization program is to replace or
upgrade all health care facilities to comparable civilian standards by
the mid-1980's in order to continue to provide military personnel,
their dependents, and other eligible beneficiaries a high level of health
care and to attract and retain professional medical personnel by
providing them with technologically sound facilities in which to work.
The medical modernization program approved by the Secretary of
Defense provided new funding levels to accelerate the replacement
and modernization of obsolete hospitals, dispensaries, and dental
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/28 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
clinics, and to upgrade recently constructed hospital facilities to meet
recently changed codes and standards of the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA), the Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Hospitals, Department of Defense planning and construction criteria,
and other nationally recognized standards and codes. The Committee
strongly endorses the objectives of this program.
The following table compares the fiscal year 1973, fiscal year 1974,
fiscal year 1975, and fiscal year 1976 programs :
Fiscal year:
1976-------------------------------------------------- $132,937,000
1975-------------------------------------------------- 66,703,000
1974-------------------------------------------------- 41,818,000
1973-------------------------------------------------- 44,384,000
The Navy's post-fiscal year 1976 medical facility deficiency amounts
to approximately $874 million. The accelerated medical program may
be extended through fiscal year 1981 to facilitate the correction of
health care facility deficiencies and the satisfaction of new and
changing requirements in the military medical community.
To date bids have been opened and construction contracts awarded
for ten fiscal year 1975 medical modernization projects.
There has been a diminishing degree of impact on cost due to infla-
tion and a lessening of escalation of construction costs. This is due to -a
currently experienced less than anticipated rate of escalation and the
fact that original estimates included a more reasonable compensating
factor than heretofore utilized.
Current cost estimates are based on low bids received:
10 Projects-awarded:
Authorization-------------------------------------------- $19,328,000
Current estimate -------------------. ---------------------------------------- $18, 627, 000
Percent decrease----------------------------------- ----- -4
NATIONAL NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER, BETHESDA, MD.
A multi-phased plan for redevelopment of the National Naval
Medical Center was presented by the Navy to the Committee during
last year's hearings. The Committee endorsed the redevelopment plan
and approved $14.9 million for correction of deficiencies that are
basic to the redevelopment.
This year the Navy is requesting approval of the second phase of
the redevelopment program consisting of construction of a 500-bed
replacement hospital, ambulance shelter, the first phase of moderniza-
tion of the central utility plant, utilities distribution, roads and
demolition. The existing hospital facilities are inadequate for providing
quality health care and for supporting the medical education and
research programs at the Center. Advancing medical technology and
increasing workloads have outstripped the capability of the existing
facility. There has been a significant increase in the number of
residency programs, number of trainees and expansion of the Medical
Center's program for training undergraduate medical students. In
addition, the new facility will be the primary teaching hospital for the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
The remaining two phases of the redevelopment plan consist of
rehabilitation of existing medical spaces including an additional 250
beds, procurement of hospital equipment, provision of additional
parking, personnel support, completion of the utility plant moderniza-
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
7
tion, utilities distribution and other supporting facilities. Phase III
is planned for fiscal year 1978 and Phase IV for fiscal year 1979.
UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES
The Uniformed Services Health Professional Revitalization Act of
September 21, 1972 authorized establishment of a Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences to educate individuals in the
health professions who will pursue careers in the Armed Services or
in some cases, in other Federal agencies. The University will provide
the only internal Department of Defense capability for extensive
professional training leading to the Doctor of Medicine Degree. Under
Public Law 92-426, the Universty is required to graduate a class of
100 medical students by 1982.
As a first step toward the achievement of permanent facilities at
Bethesda, the Department of Defense obtained approval of $15 million
for the construction of the first increment of the University under the
Navy fiscal year 1975 Military Construction Program. The first
increment will provide space to accommodate a 36-student class
which will transfer in their sophomore year from interim facilities and
accept an additional freshman class in 1976, providing for an orderly
growth pattern for the University. Final design of the first increment
has been completed and a construction contract was awarded in May
.of this year. Planning for the total University is well underway.
Authorization and funding of the second increment in fiscal year 1976
will allow a freshman class of approximately 125 medical students to
matriculate in the 1978 academic year.
The second increment of the University is needed this year to insure
the orderly growth of University facilities, faculty and curriculum. A
major element evaluated in obtaining full accreditation is reasonable
expectation of the provision of an adequate physical plant. Academic
growth and recruitment of quality faculty for the University will be
greatly enhanced by the early provision of this second increment of
the University.
For the above reasons, this Committee recommends approval of
$64,900,000 for the second increment of the University.
The Committee notes that this marks the third year of Air Force
participation in the Department of Defense Health Facilities Moderni-
zation Program. The first two years emphasized smaller Air Force
community health facilities, whereas this year's request stresses large
health facilities for the delivery of comprehensive health care at two
major Air Force centers of medicine which the Department of Defense
has made clear, will continue to play principal roles in their DOD
Medical Regions.
Air Force hospitals constructed up through the mid-1960s generally
allocated greater space to the inpatient functions than to the out-
patient activities. However, during the 1960s, the Air Force began
to experience the same shift from inpatient to outpatient care being
felt in civilian health care facilities, nationwide. This caused hospitals
of older vintage to become functionally obsolete as the demands
increased for outpatient services. Additionally, space demands of
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
modern medical technology and increasing outpatient workloads due
to a more health care oriented military population have caused the
present size and configuration deficiencies of these facilities to reach
critical levels, jeopardizing optimum treatment and health education
capabilities. The Committee recognizes that positive and long-lasting
relief can only come from the requested construction projects.
In the last five years, support by this Committee to modernize Air
Force health facilities included the following: fiscal year 1970-
Blytheville Air Force Base, Arkansas; fiscal year 1971-Langley
Air Force Base, Virginia; fiscal year 1972-Hill Air Force Base, Utah;
fiscal year 1973-Eglin Air Force Base, Florida; fiscal year 1974-
Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas; and fiscal year 1975-K. I. Sawyer
Air Force Base, Michigan.
The Fiscal year 1976 Military Construction Program contains three
health facility projects in support of the DOD regional health care
delivery system. These involve major additions to and alterations of
USAF Medical Center Keesler, Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi,
and Wilford Hall USAF Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base,
Texas, and a replacement of USAF Hospital Upper Heyford, England.
Saturation of the existing facilities and major fragmentation of inter-
dependent functions impact beyond the Air Force and affect DOD
missions at these hospitals. The project in England permits the
delivery of optimal regional health care to DOD beneficiaries in
approximately one-half of that country. A fourth request is a project
to adequately air condition essential health care functional areas of
the USAF Hospital Plattsburgh, Plattsburgh Air Force Base, New
York.
This Committee recognizes and supports the modernization of our
health facilities as a key element in achieving optimum utilization
and efficiency of our health manpower, and improving the satisfaction
of both patients and staff in continuing efforts to maintain an all-
volunteer military force.
The Committee recognizes the Army-wide shortage of adequate
maintenance facilities and notes that the Army is continuing its
efforts again this year to improve the maintenance posture. The fiscal
year 1976 request for $42,764,000 is slightly in excess of the fiscal year
1975 request and is more than double the amount requested in fiscal
year 1974. This is in consonance with the sizable backlog of main-
tenance facility requirements, estimated at over $900 million. This
year's request provides for unit level maintenance shops for tactical
equipment at eight major permanent installations as well as one air-
craft maintenance facility that will provide direct and general air-
craft maintenance support for a five state area. The Army intends to
increase emphasis on maintenance facilities in future programs.
The Navy operates eight shipyards for performing conversion,
alteration and repair necessary to maintain an acceptable state of
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100180001-3
9
material readiness in the Fleet. The Navy shipyard complex has been
in a declining workload situation over the past two decades as a result
of a shift of Navy in-house shipwork to the private shipyard sector and
reductions in size of the Fleet. New construction work was completely
phased out of Navy shipyards in 1968. Realignment of the shore
establishment to meet this decline includes the closure of three Naval
shipyards (New York, Boston, and Hunters Point). After closure
of Boston and Hunters Point, the eight remaining Naval shipyards
will be heavily utilized and constitute the minimum industrial base
needed to meet strategic capability and capacity considerations.
Of the Navy's total annual requirement for conversion, alteration
and repair work, 68 percent is currently being done in Naval shipyards
and 32 percent in private shipyards.
A shipyard modernization program was initiated in 1965 to provide
capital investments through which major industrial facilities and equip-
ment could be acquired. Funding approved for facilities under this pro-
gram totals $246 million over the period 1965 through 1975. This level
of funding is well below half the annual rate envisaged in the program.
The Navy conducted a complete restructure of the shipyard
modernization program in 1974. The results of this study are cur-
rently being reported to Congress in response to a request made during
1974 hearings before the Seapower Subcommittee on the current
status of shipyards. It is planned to implement the restructured pro-
gram over a ten-year period beginning in fiscal year 1977. The total
funding need is $1.098 billion in facilities construction and $221 mil-
lion for industrial equipment in other appropriations.
The Navy operates six NARF's (Norfolk, Cherry Point, Jackson-
ville, Pensacola, San Diego and Alameda) for depot level maintenance
of Naval aircraft, engines, missiles and ground support equipment.
A consolidation of NARF capability occurred in 1973 with the closure
of NARF Quonset Point, Rhode Island. The Navy's total annual
requirement for depot level maintenance of this type is met by the
in-house NARF's, supplemented by commercial contracts, and cross-
service out to the Air Force and Army. In addition to performing the
bulk of the Navy workload, NARF's perform aircraft and related
work for the Army and Air Force amounting to about $50 million
annually.
For the past year, the Navy has participated in a Department of
Defense sponsored Aeronautical Depot Level Maintenance Consoli-
dation Study chartered to investigate consolidation of Department of
Defense workloads on a four-service base. The initial phases of this
are now being evaluated by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The
study has pointed up "open" capacity in present facilities, mainly in
areas of engine overhaul and avionics equipment maintenance. It
will be evaluated to determine the feasible extent and categories of
consolidation and increased cross-service depot level maintenance,
with due consideration to projected mobilization requirements.
The Committee reviewed in detail Air Force Depot Plant Modern-
ization Program cost analysis procedures, realized and anticipated
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
benefits, program progress, and this year's budget request. Appro-
priations approved to date, the 1976 request, and the remaining
program are shown on the following chart:
Air Force Base
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
To go
Total
Equipment
total
Program
total
Hill________________________
11.3
2,8
8.3
8.8
0
14.9
48.1
31.4
79.5
Kelly______________________
11.0
3.8
5.5
9.7
4.8
16.7
67.2
47.5
114.7
MCClellan__----------------
0
9.2
2.5
14.1
3,4
3.9
34.5
20.3
54.8
Newark____________________
1.5
0
0
2.0
2.1
.7
6.3
1.2
7.5
Robins_____________________
15.9
7.2
4.1
.8
5.9
19.7
57.7
28.7
86.4
Tinker_____________________
12.8
9,7
10.8
9.8
5,4
11.9
60.4
38.4
98.8
Information available to this Committee indicates that capital
investments made through this program are enhancing worker pro-
ductivity. These investments both reduce costs and increase force
effectiveness. Projects within the program are backed with economic
analyses and a tracking system exists to insure maximum benefits
are realized from each investment upon beneficial use. The program
is limited to depot maintenance, supply, and transportation, activi-
ties at the Air Force's five Air Logistics Centers and specialized repair
activity at Newark, Ohio. The modern facilities and equipment pro-
vided through the program are selected or designed to reduce repair
times, enhance worker productivity, and/or increase the quality and
reliability of weapon systems through the depot work performed.
The Logistics Material Processing Facility at Kelly AFB, which
was provided by the fiscal year 1972 MCP, is one example of depot
modernization. This facility which required an investment of $5.5
million for construction and $2.3 million for new equipment is achiev-
ing benefits available from modern concepts of computerized data
processing and automated materials handling. One-time savings of
over $6.6 million resulted from this project by cancellation of other
proposed construction and equipment investments. Increased efficien-
cies have already allowed the workload to be completed with sixty
three fewer personnel.
The objective is still to maintain a depot logistics plant that can
rapidly, effectively, and efficiently meet the needs of the deterrent
force and provide a ready and controlled base to support surges if
demanded by national emergency. As worker productivity increases
through modernization, maintenance manpower is decreased so that
total organic depot output does not increase. Through fiscal year
1975, over 2150 maintenance manpower reductions were made as a
result of this program and by 1980 the total reductions programmed
exceed 3300 spaces. Inefficient facilities and eqiupment are being
disposed of as their replacements become available. As a result, the
total space to be occupied after modernization is less than at the
beginning of the program and the cost of maintaining these facilities
will be avoided. The auditing system also covers the disposal of old
facilities.
In summary, the program provides operational advantages and
tangible benefits, which rapidly amortize investment costs, and signifi-
cant intangible benefits.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/14 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
CONSTRUCTION BACKLOG
ARMY
The Army estimates its construction backlog at approximately
$8.1 billion, of which about $4.2 billion is for replacement and moderni-
zation. General Authorization, NATO Infrastructure and overseas
construction requirements are excluded from these totals. The Army
is striving to hold this estimated backlog to manageable proportions
by including only hard requirements and purging less essential items
that realistically would probably never be built. Newly identified
requirements added to the program and rapidly increasing construc-
tion costs combine to offset annual construction efforts and it is
difficult to register any annual reduction in the overall backlog. The
Army's program is focusing on projects enhancing the soldiers' living
conditions and well being. Specific programs have been outlined which
will essentially eliminate deficits in bachelor housing and medical
facilities by 1981 if required funding is received. The Army's program
also focuses on projects required for energy conservation and projects
to meet the provisions of federal and local pollution abatement laws.
Unfortunately, the backlogs in other construction categories are not
expected to be reduced within current funding levels.
NAVY
The Navy's backlog of essential military construction projects is
estimated to be $9.0 billion. The breakdown of this backlog by type
among new missions, current missions, and replacement and modern-
ization follows: BREAKDOWN BY TYPE
[Dollar amounts In billions)
Percent of
Amount total
$ 3.7 41.1
7
1
mission------------------
.
18.9
-------
3.6 40.0
Current mission---------------- ----------------------------------------
Replacement and modernization__________________________________________________
0
100
.
Total deficiencies--------------------------------------------------------- 9.0
The Navy's estimated annual funding required to correct deficiencies
is $850,000,000. The following table shows funding received, the trend
toward achieving the annual funding goal, and the rate at which the
Navy has been working to correct the deficiencies.
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
(Dollar amount in millions(
Fiscal year 1973 Fiscal year 1974 Fiscal year 1975 Fiscal year 1976
Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent
5 56 6
9 $483
2
.
.
.
_____________ $209.3 40.4 $412.2 63.6 $318.8 5
0 109.9 12.9
New mission
3 19
114
___
.
.
Current mission_____________ 121.2 23.4 112.4 17.3
Replacement and modernize.
1 169.1 28.1 260.6 30.5
7 19
2 123
6
.
.
.
187 8 3
lion------- --------------
0
100
.
Total________________ 518.3 100.0 648.3 100.0 602.2 100.0 854.0
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : j~-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
The Committee agrees that programs of at least the size of the
fiscal year 1976 program are required in the future to provide the most
urgent projects in the Navy's construction backlog.
AIR FORCE
The Air Force reports that to eliminate its backlog of facility require-
ments for the active force would require new construction and/or
modernization projects in the amount of $7.1 billion at todays con-
struction costs. The Air Force has assured the Committee that this
backlog has been validated by sound engineering estimates and a
true assessment of valid mission requirements. Of the total backlog
the Air Force has identified $1.4 billion as being required to support
new missions, $2.6 billion to offset deficiencies associated with current
missions and $3.1 billion required for replacement or upgrading of
existing facilities. Air Force proposals for Fiscal Year 1976 and for
the years 1977-1980 and the effect that these proposals may have on
the deficit are indicated in the following tabulation:
[In millions of dollars]
Deficiency
Fiscal year
1976 program
FYDP
fiscal year
MCPs
1977-80
Remaining
deficiency
Operational --------
Trainin----------- -------------------------- - -------
50
$1,2
$222
$819
$209
/ -------------------
5
0
20
109
61
Research and development_________________________
SU
850
850
10
183
725
400
Medical ---------------
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
370
675
44
15
176
110
156
Administrative---------------
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Troop housing_________ ____
------------------------
Community
- ----------------------------------
-
300
870
500
5
16
53
134
59
207
386
225
610
e
-
---
Utilities
-
-
-
-
-
-
Real es-
-
-
-
--------------------------------
Real estate
900
12
as
348
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
00 0
---------
18
466
62
------- 500 54
-------------
232
214
Total ______________________?_______
7,100
704
3,082
3,314
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
The Pollution Abatement Programs of the Department of Defense
are oriented to comply with Public Law 91-604, the Clean Air Act of
1970, and Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, as well as applicable local and State laws.
ARMY
During the program years 1968 through 1975 this Committee has
approved appropriations for pollution control projects at Army instal-
lations in the aggregate amounts of $81.9 million for air pollution
abatement and $143.8 million for water pollution abatement. The
Arm's program this year includes air pollution abatement projects at
five installations for a cost of $5,779,000 and water pollution abate-
ment projects at 22 installations for a cost of $51,961,000. The signif-
icant increase in funding over last year's program is for water pollution
control and reflects the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/051%0 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
NAVY
A reversal of environmental deterioration is a vital concern to
everyone in this country. The Committee notes, that to this end, the
Navy has been devoting a significant amount of its MCON re-
sources to the protection of the environment. During fiscal years 1968
through 1975, this Committee approved appropriations for air and
water pollution control projects totaling $340 million. The Navy
program this year includes $3,262,000 for air pollution projects and
$45,077,000 for water pollution projects or 6 percent of the Navy
military construction program.
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year:
0
$23
382
$23,382
---------------------------------------------
1968
1
7
1 8
6
,
4
909
08
11
-----------
1968---------------------------------------------
-------
,
4,100
,
20,815
,
24,915
1970-------------------------------------------------
1971
---------------------------------------
-
1210
15,962
20,295
36,257
--
--
1972---------------------------------------------------------
194
24
51,216
75,410
1973---------------------------------------------------------
,
636
27
55,107
82,743
1974
-------------------------------------------------
,
908
10
48
289
59,197
--
1975--------------------------------------------------------
,
,
18
9
912
2
100
47
Subtotal---------------------------------------------------
2,843
45,077
,920
1976----------- ---------------------------------------------------
020
388
Total ------ ---------------------------------------- "" """
93,031
294,989
,
The Navy's air pollution abatement projects will reduce open
burning of ammunition at ordnance facilities and will allow Navy
participation in a new re onal landfill to which Navy contributes
20 percent of the daily solid waste volume. Water pollution control
projects will improve collection and treatment facilities for both
industrial and sanitary wastes, improve oily waste collection and recla-
mation and allow demilitarization of ammunition in an environ-
mentally acceptable and cost effective manner. This Committee
anticipates continued pollution abatement projects in the Military
Construction Program as more stringent standards are established
by local, state and Federal Governments. Resource reuse and recovery
projects, noise pollution abatement projects and bulk fuel depot
oil pollution prevention facilities will be areas requiring additional
pollution abatement funds in the future.
AIR FORCE
Since 1965, the Air Force has projects, either completed or under-
way, totalling $167.3 million from all appropriations for pollution
abatement at its installations. This amount includes $110.8 million
in Military Construction Programs.
The $600,000 air pollution control project in this program is to
provide an impervious landfill disposal site at Edwards AFB for dried
toxic salts and other residue resulting from test rocket firings in 1962-
67 which are now in temporary storage. This permanent disposal
facility will not cause air or water contamination.
The 12 water pollution control projects for $10.1 million continue
the Air Force efforts to comply with the July 1977 "best available
technology" goal of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
14
ment of 1972 (FWPCA). These provide for sanitary and industrial
waste treatment and/or connection to regional systems where feasible.
These projects are in consonance with the provisions of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued these Air
Force installations and also with the installation Oil Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure (SPEC) plan required under the
FWPCA.
The Committee anticipates a much larger environmental protection
construction program in the next fiscal year as the NPDES permit re-
quirements for July 1977 become fully available and the various state
implementation plans adopted and approved by the EPA under the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 become final. Although there may
be some decrease in the program in Fiscal Year 1978, the Committee
anticipates much larger construction programs as the EPA promul-
gates environmental quality standards to meet the July 1, 1983, goal of
"best available technology" established by the FWPCA, and the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1970.
This year the Committee recommends approval of $10.7 million for
additional projects to assure compliance with current air and water
quality standards.
APPROPRIATIONS
Fiscal ear:
1965---------------------------------------------------------
$0
$1,117
$1,117
1966---------------------------------------------------------
1967---------------------------------------------------------
0
2,983
2,983
1968------------------------ --------- ----------------------
2,561
11,770
14,331
1969 --------- ------------------------ --------------------
0
2,627
2,627
1970---------------------------- ----------------------------
1, 506
2,694
4,200
1971 --------------------------------- -----------------------
1, 550
12, 263
13,813
1972------ --------------------------------------------------
15, 220
8, 805
24, 025
1973---------------------------------------------------------
7,471
14,228
21,699
1974-----------------------------?--------------------------
3, 689
6, 131
9, 820
1975---------------------------------------------------------
2, 056
13,295
15,351
Subtotal---------------------------------------------------
34,053
76;793
110,846
1976---------------------------------------------------------
600
10,098
10,698
The Army has reported that the down-swing in the economy has
induced strongly competitive bidding in recent months and as of
May 1975 had resulted in some short-term down-swing in construction
bids due to decreased profit margins, with commensurate short-term
decrease in the rate of cost growth. However, as the economy improves
and key staff and highest productivity elements in the construction
industry become fully committed during fiscal year 1976, cost engi-
neers anticipate that subsequent bid prices will rise in response to
market conditions and that cost growth for the fiscal year 1976 con-
struction program will be approximately identical to the indices they
have used in forecasting the program.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/201.5CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
The Army will review the program carefully to insure that all pos-
sible economies are achieved and will give priority on the use of funds
to those projects essential for national security and improvements of
personnel living conditions.
During the past year the Navy has continued to experience an ex-
cessively high bidding climate in which current working estimates,
based on bids received, exceed the authorized project costs over a
range of 4.4 to 165 percent.
Increased project costs are attributable to shortages of some con-
struction materials (especially steel, asphalt supplies, petroleum-based
products, and heavy electrical products such as transformers and
electrical cable), an unpredictable labor market, high interest rates,
energy problems, and other uncertainties in the unstable construction
industry which drive prices upward.
Efforts being made by the Navy to combat inflationary trends in-
clude specifying the minimum scope of work to meet mission require-
ments, obtaining more bids for greater competition, including more
additive or deductive items in construction specifications to permit a
wider range of award choices if bids are high, and basing cost estimates
on the latest bidding experience in each construction location. The
Committee supports retention of project scope to the maximum degree
practicable to support mission requirements, but recognizes some
reductions may be necessary during a period of fluctuating costs.
During the third quarter of Fiscal Year 1975, the uncertainties of
material availability and costs resulting from the economic condi-
tions of Calendar Year 1974 began to level off. The average current
working estimate for the Air Force FY 1975 Military Construction
Program, based on bids received through June 30, 1975, was 92 percent
of the programmed amount. This compares with 111 percent for the
FY 1974 Military Construction Program through June 30, 1974.
Average current
working estimate
as percent of
Number of programed
projects amount
January/ February-------------------------------------------------------
8
104
March--
31
87
April------------- ----------------------------------------------------
16
93
me y
June?-??------------?-------------?-?---?------????----------?------?--
33
91
Of the 101 projects opened for bids, only seven exceed 125 percent
of the programmed amount. The bidder response during this period
has been very favorable, averaging seven bidders per project. How-
ever, the exceptional bidding climate appears to have reached its
peak and some cost overruns may be expected on remaining projects
yet to be awarded.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/228: CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100180001-3
The Air Force continues to critically review each project to insure
that designs specify the minimum amount of work necessary to
satisfy the mission requirement.
The TRIDENT System consists of new strategic missile system, an
advanced nuclear powered submarine, and a dedicated support site
that will provide the United States with a sea-based strategic deterrent
for the 1980's and beyond.
Consideration by the Navy of various alternatives revealed that a
dedicated support site was the most advantageous means of support-
ing the TRIDENT System. Three other alternatives considered were
to:
(a) use the existing Polaris/Poseidon support system
(b) construct a new support system for TRIDENT similar to
Polaris/Poseidon
(c) use existing shipyards for refit and logistics support of the
TRIDENT submarine.
Alternative (a) was rejected because of the size of the TRIDENT
submarine. Alternative (b) consisted of similar facilities (tender,
floating drydock, etc.) as the Polaris/Poseidon system. It was con-
sidered much less effective than a dedicated support site. Alternative
(c) would have lengthened the refit cycle and thus reduced operational
effectiveness of the system. After considering these options, Navy
decided in favor of a dedicated support site. After review of potential
sites, the Bangor Annex to Naval Torpedo Station Keyport, Washing-
ton, was selected to be the TRIDENT Support Site. At this support site,
there will be facilities for ship refit missile assembly and support
personnel and training and general base support. The TRIDENT
Support Site will be capable of providing fully integrated and dedicated
logistic and refit support to the TRIDENT System.
The total Military Construction Program required to support 10
TRIDENT submarines is expected to extend through fiscal year 1979
with a total estimated cost of about $657 million. The increase from
the previously reported $543 million is due to the inordinately high
cost growth being experienced in the construction industry, the addi-
tion of conventional ordnance facilities at Indian Island and com-
munity impact support.
In fiscal year 1974, $112,320,000 was appropriated for the TRI-
DENT Military Construction Program. Of that total, approximately
$35,000,000 is designated for the Flight Test Facilities at Cape Canav-
eral, Florida, and $77,000,000 for the facilities at the TRIDENT
Support Site in Bangor, Washington.
The Cape Canaveral facilities include:
Wharf and Dredging.
Launch Complex 25 Alterations.
Missile Check-out Buildings.
Guidance and Telemetry Buildings.
All of the contracts for the Cape Canaveral projects have been
awarded with the exception of the Lifting Device Proofing Facility
which was canceled because an alternative method of testing ordnance
lifting devices has been developed.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
17
At the TRIDENT Support Site, the following projects were in-
cluded in the fiscal year 1974 program:
Utilities and Site Improvements.
Warehouse.
TRIDENT Training Facility (First Increment).
Refit Pier and Delta Support Platform.
Covered Explosive Handling Wharf.
Land Acquisition (Siting of facilities now negate requirement
for land acquisition).
In fiscal year 1975, $1.00,000,000 was appropriated for the TRI-
DENT Military Construction Program. The facilities included in
fiscal year 1975 will provide a second and final increment of the
TRIDENT Training Facility, the second increment of utilities and
site improvements, and the first increment of the missile assembly
and support facilities.
The facilities approved in fiscal year 1975 are:
These facilities are required to assemble and check out the new
missiles for the TRIDENT submarine:
Vertical Missile Packagin g Building.
Missile Assembly Control Building (Modification).
Inert Components Processing Building (Modification).
Missile Parts Warehouse.
Technical Services Building.
Engineering Services Building.
Limited Area Guardhouse.
Strategic Weapons System Supply Warehouse.
Missile Assembly Building No. 1 (Modifications).
Strategic Weapons Systems Maintenance Shop: This building will
maintain the Strategic Weapons Systems of the submarines as they
begin operations from the TRIDENT Support Site.
TRIDENT Training Facility (2nd Increment) : This facility will
allow training of submarine crews so they are ready to operate the
submarines as they are delivered.
These facilities will house and feed the personnel who arrive initially
to man the base and ready it for the submarines:
Bachelor Enlisted Quarters.
Enlisted Personnel Dining Facility.
Utilities and Site Improvements: These will provide heating plants,
steam and water distribution, sanitary and storm sewer systems,
electrical distribution system, base transportation system roads, and
parking.
Relocation of Quality Evaluation Engineering Laboratory: This
facility must be relocated because its explosive safety are encompasses
the planned personnel support facilities.
Marino Corps Berthing Facility: This facility will accommodate
the lamer Marine security force required by the expansion of the
Strategic Weapons Facility.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
18
Fire Station : This facility will provide fire protection for the new
facilities being constructed.
The fiscal year 1976 portion of the TRIDENT Military Construc-
tion Program amounts to $186,967,000. The facilities required in
fiscal year 1976 will provide the second increment of Missile Assembly
and Support Facilities, the third increment of Utilities and Site Im-
provements, the second increment of Personnel Support facilities,
the Refit Industrial and Nuclear Industrial Facilities, the Drydock
with related access trestle, a support facility located on the Refit
Delta, and Ammunition Pier/Wharf located at Indian Island Annex
of the Naval Torpedo Station, Keyport, a DASO Data facility at
Cape Canaveral, and the first increment of Community Impact Aid.
The facilities the Navy requested in fiscal year 1976 are:
Missile Assembly and Support Facilities
These facilities are required to assemble and check out the new
missiles for the TRIDENT Submarine:
Equipment Maintenance Building.
Transfer Facility (Modifications).
Explosive Components Checkout Building (Modifications).
Missile Assembly Building No. 2 (Modification).
Re-Entry Body Building No. 2.
Non-Destruct Test and Inspection Building (Modification).
Maintenance Support Building.
Missile Motor Magazines.
Small Ordnance Magazine (Modifications).
Flammable Storage Building.
Alarm Control Center System (First Increment).
Refit Facilities
These facilities are required to provide refit for the TRIDENT sub-
marine :
Drydock: This facility will provide necessary drydocking of the
TRIDENT submarine every fourth refit.
Delta Access Trestle: This structure will provide access from
shore to the refit delta.
Delta Support Facility: This facility will be constructed on the
Delta Support platform and will house waterfront trades and
services required for refit.
Refit Industrial Facility: This facility provides repair and
maintenance of the ship's machinery, installed equipment and
component systems.
Nuclear Industrial Facility: This facility is necessary to perform
maintenance and repair of TRIDENT reactor plant components
and related functions.
POL Tank Farm : Will provide thirty-day heating fuel storage
for the TRIDENT Support Site.
TRIDENT DASO Data Processing/Support Facility (Modifica-
tions) : This facility is required to process and analyze the instrumenta-
tion data collected in support of the TRIDENT submarine Demon-
stration and Shakedown Operations (DASO) prior to additional
scheduled testing.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
19
Ammunition Pier/Wharf : The present capability is located at Bangor
and will require relocation to Indian Island Annex because of explosive
arcs generated by the TRIDENT operations at the Bangor site.
This is the first of two increments of Community Impact Support,
provided to alleviate secondary impacts in the area of the TRIDENT
Support Site by providing funds to other Federal Agencies to use
in existing programs to the extent that those programs are unable to
provide for such support. This support is authorized by Public
Law 93-552.
A summary of the future Military Construction Appropriation
requests for TRIDENT follows:
FISCAL YEAR 1977-$143,3M
In fiscal year 1977, Navy plans to build the third increment of
Missile Assembly and Sup ort Facilities, a second refit pier, submarine
support facilities, general support facilities, the fourth increment of
utilities and site improvements and personnel support facilities; a
cargo pad at McChord Air Force Base; a Missile Tracking Station
at Point Mugu; relocated conventional ordnance facilities at Indian
Island annex; a storage facility and test/instrumentation facility at
Cape Canaveral; and the second increment of Community Impact
Support.
FISCAL YEAR 1978-$58.5M
In fiscal year 1978 the Navy plans to build the fifth increment of
Utilities and Site Improvements and personnel support facilities, a
helipad, a bachelor enlisted quarters and the Alarm Control Center
systems, the second Explosive Handling Wharf and a Service Pier.
FISCAL YEAR 1979-$11.2M
In fiscal year 1979 the Navy plans to build the sixth and final
increment of Utilities and Site Improvement, and personnel support
facilities.
This Committee continues to support the TRIDENT Submarine
Weapons System concept, which received a strong Congressional
mandate in 1973.
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER, LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
On January 3, 1975, the Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC)
successfully completed its move from Philadelphia to Lakehurst,
New Jersey, thereby completing its realignment action. The total
number of personnel were reduced by 911. Consolidation of ships
installation functions was completed at the new location.
Estimated cost for relocation is as follows:
1. Cost associated with Shore Establishment Realignment (SER)
program-----------------------------------------------
$20,099,000
2.
Non-SER costs-------------------------------------------
2, 154, 000
Total cost estimate------------------------------------
22, 253, 000
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
20
Estimated annual savings to result from relocation are as follows:
Personnel__________________________________________ $33,800,000 $21,400,000 $12,400,000
Support---------------------------------------------- 8,800,000 5,900,000 2,900,000
A final report on actual relocation costs and savings will be provided
to the appropriation committees by 15 February 1976.
NAVAL DISTRICT WASHINGTON
Last year, the Committee stated its position on moving elsewhere
those military functions for which location in the Washington area was
not essential.
This year the Committee re-examined this concept because this
year's program includes $21.3 million for relocating selected functions
of the Bureau of Naval Personnel to New Orleans. This move would
relocate approximately 1,700 personnel and reduce space requirements
in the Washington area by approximately 366,000 square feet. The
Committee has examined the advantages and disadvantages of this
move and determined that this move meets the criteria established by
the Committee for moving military functions from the Washington
area. The selected functions of the Bureau of Naval Personnel to be
moved are not essential to the Washington area. For efficiency of
operation, the move is desirable in that it will combine several activities
involved in personnel administration into one organization responsible
for all aspects of Navy personnel management, officer and enlisted,
regular and reserve. With respect to the Committee economic criteria,
savings of $52 million are expected over a 25-year period compared
with an investment of $43 million over the same period. Although the
investment is not returned until the 15th year, there will be real savings
accruing after this point in time, and the performance of these func-
tions will undoubtedly continue for 25 years. There may be some
disadvantages to the move because of increased traffic congestion and
overcrowding of some elementary schools, but the Committee believes
the economic advantages to the community more than offset these
disadvantages.
During the hearings, the Committee learned of some other activities
the Navy is considering relocating. These activities are tabulated
below:
Personnel Square feet
reductions vacated
Navy Weather Service Command Headquarters (to Monterey, Calif.)------------------- 41 9,200
Naval Oceanographic Office r and selected programs (to Bay St. Louis, Miss.)----------- 1,321 365, 000
Navy Food Service Systems Office (to Philadelphia, Pa.) ----------------------------- 42 9, 856
Navy Nuclear Power Unit (to Port Hueneme Calif.)--------------------------------- 82 12,630
Military Sealift Command Headquarters (to `Treasure Island, Calif.)-------------------- 332 60,177
Navy Medical Data Services Center (to Pensacola, Fla.)----------------------- _ 82 16, 000
I Subsequent to the hearings, the Navy announced on July 25, 1975, the relocation of the Naval Oceanographic Office to
Bay St. Lou,,,, Miss.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : 9y -RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
When moves are contemplated, the Committee expects the Navy
to move to areas where there are existing federal facilities and hold
new construction to a minimum.
The Navy has made significant progress in meeting the space
reduction goal of 950,000 square feet by the Secretary of Defense.
With currently approved relocations, the Navy projects achievement
by 1978 of a 1.3 million square feet space reduction and the elimination
or relocation of 13,700 personnel.
As tabulated above, the Navy has under study the reduction of 1900
more personnel and 473,000 square feet of space.
The Committee recognizes the progress made by the Navy and
supports the Navy actions to make further reductions so long as these
actions meet the economic and efficiency criteria set forth by the
Committee.
The Navy submitted a full report for using the amount of $36,-
300,000 appropriated in Fiscal Year 1975 for construction in the
Naval District Washington. The Navy subsequently requested the
inclusion of $6,828,000 in the FY 1976 Military Construction Appro-
priation Bill for proceeding with two construction projects at the
Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland. The Committee recommends
adding funds for these projects, which are important to the moderniza-
tion of the Naval Academy. The projects are Luce Hall Addition and
Modernization ($6,450,000) and Landfill/Site Improvement ($378,000).
NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY-DIEGO GARCIA (INDIAN OCEAN)
In fiscal year 1971, the Congress a proved funding of $5,400,000 to
establish a Naval Communications Facility on Diego Garcia. In fiscal
year 1972, $8,950,000 was provided for the second increment and in
fiscal year 1973, $6,100,000 was provided for dredging. The total
amount authorized and appropriated for the facility through fiscal
year 1973 was $20,450,000.
In fiscal year 1975, $14,802,000 was authorized to establish a Logis-
tics Support Facility on Diego Garcia, subject to the President of the
United States advising the Congress in writing that he had evaluated
all military and foreign policy implications regarding the need for
logistic support facilities and certified that the construction is essential
to the national interest.
On May 12, 1975, the President of the United States certified to the
Congress that the construction should proceed at Diego Garcia. A
disapproving resulution (Senate Resolution 160) was introduced by
Senator Mansfield on May 19, 1975.
Over the July 4th recess 1975, Members of the House and Senate
visited Berbera in Somalia at the invitation of the Government of
Somalia. Conclusions reached by this visit were that Berbera, with
the facilities that are under construction, has significant military
tential, and that the Soviets control or at least have access to all
facilities at Berbera.
On July 28, 1975, the Senate took up and disapproved, by a vote of
53 to 43, Senate Resolution 160.
In fiscal year 1976, the Navy requested $13,800,000 for the expan-
sion of facilities at the Naval Support Facility, Diego Garcia. The
amount requested was authorized by the Armed Services Committees
of the House and Senate and appropriations were approved by the
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005105k
R: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
House In view of the Senate action on Senate Resolution 160, the
Committee recommends approval of the requested amount of
$13,800,000.
The Army flight simulator buildings included in the fiscal year
1976 program are the first in a multiple year program. The six flight
simulator buildings included in the fiscal year 1976 Military Con-
struction program will house the Synthetic Flight Training Systems
programed in the fiscal year 1975 and fiscal year 1976 Procurement
Appr&priation. The Synthetic Flight Training Systems will provide
aviator proficiency at a reduced cost. The utilization of the training
systems will also reduce fuel consumption.
The Navy requested $5.5 million for three projects in this year's
military construction program to house aircraft flight simulators
costing approximately $34 million. These trainers will provide a
realistic degree of initial training for student pilots and refresher
training for experienced pilots which will greatly enhance the ability
of the pilots to land their aircraft on carrier decks under adverse
conditions, to outmaneuver enemy aircraft in combat, and to extract
the maximum effectiveness from their aircraft's potential. Emergency
and flight operations under marginal conditions can be simulated
with safety and without risking expensive aircraft or highly-trained
personnel. The current emphasis on energy conservation and pollution
abatement makes these trainers all the more attractive.
These projects are the continuation of a trend which started several
years ago. In fiscal year 1975, over $100 million was expended on trainer
devices. With the increased procurement of trainers has come in-
creased research and development of these devices enhancing their
realism. As trainers procured in the past are installed and validated,
their effectiveness can be more fully evaluated and quantified.
An interesting off-shoot of these aircraft trainers is a project at
Charleston, South Carolina for a submarine trainer. This $250,000
military construction project, with its associated $800,000 trainer
device, will provide a training capability for the nuclear attack
submarine crews to practice casualty control. It is anticipated that
there will be more such non-aircraft applications developed as our
weapons become more expensive to buy and operate.
The Air Force is continuing its effort to increase the use of aircraft
flight simulators in its undergraduate and combat crew training
programs and to maintain the proficiency of its combat ready crews.
The high level of technical competence that has been achieved in the
fields of electronics and computer design now makes it possible to
duplicate, with a high degree of accuracy, the physical sensations and
visual displays that a pilot experiences in the airborne environment.
The application of this technology to devices that will simulate the
primary operational and combat aircraft operated by the Air Force
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : rg A-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
can achieve the same successes experienced by NASA with its moon
landing simulator and the commercial airlines with their aircraft
flight simulators.
In view of the current circumstances, with high fuel costs and the
necessity to rely so heavily on foreign producers for our primary
source of energy, the use of aircraft flight simulators by the Air Force
represents a significant contribution toward reduced fuel consumption
and independence from foreign sources.
By replacing actual flying hours with training hours in flight
simulators, the Air Force can provide high quality initial qualification
in its aircraft and can maintain a high level of proficiency while
reducing fuel consumption and saving money.
The Committee is convinced that an investment in aircraft flight
simulators will result in substantial fuel and dollar savings. While it
is realized that an exact determination of savings can only be gained
by experience, the projected reduction in flying hours will result in
meaningful economies.
NATO INFRASTRUCTURE
The US continues to benefit from facilities made available through
NATO common Infrastructure funding. This program provides facili-
ties and systems for NATO common use, such as communications,
pipelines, and air defense, as well as military facilities for use by
forces of one or more nations-such as airfields or naval bases. Recent
annual construction programs have provided on the average over
$5 in facilities for US forces for every $3 of US contributions to
single or joint user projects. For the five annual programs through
Slice XXV (calendar year 1974), some 53 percent of all national user
projects were programmed for benefit of US forces. So long as the US
can fit its military construction programs into available common
NATO funds, the US will benefit from the NATO Infrastructure
pro am.
Now that the basic facilities have been provided, emphasis is on
modernization and expansion of existing basic facilities. Airfields must
be improved so that they can support today's more complex aircraft.
The POL System must be modified to ensure its ability to function
under emergency conditions. The NATO Satellite Communications
System (SATCOM), which is based on the US interim defense com-
munications satellite system, is programmed and funded. Semi-
automation and integration of NATO's early warning system provides
a control and reporting system for the air defense of Allied Command
Europe. This new orientation of the program should continue to pro-
vide a larger proportion of the facilities needed by US forces. The
program includes aircraft survival measures, including aircraft shelters,
and controlled humidity storage to maintain in good condition equip-
ment for our dual-based forces.
Negotiation of the size and cost sharing for NATO Infrastructure
Slices XXVI-XXX (1975-1979) has been substantially concluded. All
nations have agreed to a five-year program with a monetary ceiling of
$1.35 billion. Although this is substantially less than priority military
requirements identified by NATO military commanders, it will permit
the program to continue to move forward. Included in the $1.35
billion five-year program is a special category group of projects to-
talling $100 million for US forces. This special US category program
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/0 : CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100180001-3
will permit construction of projects which are currently ineligible for
common funding. All projects in the new program will be governed
by non-discriminatory bid comparison rules, whereby contractors'
bids will be compared exclusive of import taxes and duties. The
official US contribution percentage has been reduced from 29.7 per-
cent in the previous program to 27.3 percent in the new program.
When the US special category program is considered, the US effective
share drops to about 20 percent.
The U.S. Navy continues to benefit from facilities made available
through NATO common funding. Construction projects that will be
used directly by U.S. Naval forces deployed on peacetime missions
and having a total value of between fifteen and twenty million dollars
were approved or are proposed in each of NATO Infrastructure Slices
XXIV, XXV and XXVI. These projects are located in both the
European and the Atlantic areas.
At the same time the Navy has been able in its fiscal year 1975 and
1976 requests to avoid the necessity of asking Congress to prefinance,
that is approve in annual military construction programs, needed
projects that are eligible for NATO financing but which have not been
processed through the NATO system.
The Navy has followed-up with NATO programming actions on
those urgent projects prefinanced in the fiscal year 1972, 1973 and
1974 military construction programs, principally at Sigonella, Sicily
and Souda Bay, Crete. A total of $7.8 million has been approved by
NATO for such projects in Slices XXIII through XXV, and $4.4
million is pending approval in Slice XXVI. Upon actual recoupmentof
these amounts from NATO, the Navy's backlog of prefinanced,
eligible projects pending approval by NATO will be virtually
eliminated.
As regards the projects at Souda Bay, the fiscal year 1973 and 1974
military construction projects have not been prosecuted due to failure
to date by the U.S. Navy and Hellenic Air Force to reach agreement
on a new or revised bilateral facilities use agreement for Souda Bay.
Also, effective 24 August 1974, NATO has placed a hold on all infra-
structure projects in Greece. Navy plans to achieve the most urgent
facilities requirements at Souda Bay through execution of approved
and pending NATO infrastructure projects.
Depending on the outcome of the SHAPE review of Slice XXVII
proposals, to be reported in calendar year 1975, Navy may be com-
pelled to seek prefinancing in the fiscal year 1977 military construction
program of $2.3 million for the final phase (III) of the Lampedusa
Island, Italy, Loran-C Facility. To maintain pace with Coast Guard
plans for a Mediterranean Loran upgrade, Navy would have to furnish
funding for this essential requirement in early calendar 1977, thereby
necessitating prefinancing should NATO not approve the project in
Slice XXVII.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
25
Regarding the U.S. Special interest infrastructure program, Slice
XXVI to XXX, and Navy actions supporting same, at present no
U.S. Navy projects have been selected for funding in this program.
There are, however, U.S. Navy projects for cold iron and communica-
tions stations which are being considered and may subsequently
advance in priority to be funded through the $98 million being
structured.for the special interest program.
FAMILY HOUSING PROCEDURES, ARMY
Beginning in 1973 the Army has used turnkey procedures exclusively
on Family Housing projects in the contiguous 48 states. Only the
projects in Hawaii have used conventional procedures.
MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING, USE OF TURN KEY PROCEDURES 1973-75
]Dollar amount in millions]
Fiscal year program
and service Units Amount
1973: Army____________ 2,894 $80.6
1974: Army____________ 3,635 93.8
1975: Army ------------- 772 23.8
Units
Cost
Total
percent
units
Total
percent
cost
2,254
$56.9
78
71
3,483
85.3
96
91
400
10.0
52
42
1 All contracts turn key except Hawaii. Includes only contracts awarded as of Oct. 20, 1974.
FAMILY HOUSING TURNKEY PROCEDURES
NAVY
The Navy has gained valuable experience to date on total turnkey
awards, however, their percentages are not as high as the other
Services since Navy has unique projects at certain locations, where
conventional design is required such as Iceland Philippines, District
of Columbia, and Hawaii.. The Navy's fiscal year 1976 turnkey
effort will be only 58 percent of program in units, because of projects
being located in areas noted above where turnkey is not acceptable.
MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING, USE OF TURNKEY CONTRACTING PROCEDURES-FISCAL YEAR 1973-75
Dollar amount in millions]
Fiscal year program
Number of
Number of
Number of
and service
units
Amount
units
Amount
units
Cost
1973:
Navy_____________
2,595
$77.7
1,890
$52.2
73
$67
1974:
Navy_____________
2,150
61.2
1,945
54.6
91
89
1975:
Navy_____________
11,332
47.2
1,200
37.6
90
80
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
26
MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING, AIR FORCE-USE OF TURNKEY CONTRACTING PROCEDURES-FISCAL YEAR 1973-75
[Dollar amount in millions]
Fiscal year program
and service
1973: Air Force_________
1974: AirForce ------- __
1975: AirForce ---------
Number of
units
Amount
Number of
units
Amount
Number of
units
Cost
2,898
$76.0
2,098
$54.6
72
$72
1,70D
52.6
1,700
52.6
100
100
11,050
35.2
200
6.1
19
17
i Estimated Oct. 1, 1975-Awaiting proposals on turnkey projects (2). 3 of the 4 remaining projects (conventional) under
design, 4th project on OSD hold.
AIR INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE USE ZONE (AICUZ)
The Committee recognizes that the encroachment of military air
fields by incompatible development continues to be one of the main
threats to future operational capability. Recognizing this problem
the Department of Defense initiated the Air Installation Compatible
Use Zone (AICUZ) program several years ago. The AICUZ program
is designed to work toward achieving compatibility between air
installations and neighboring civil communities by means of a com-
patible land use planning and control process conducted by the local
community. Following a multi-phased environmental planning assess-
ment and analysis, an AICUZ study is prepared, which projects,
maps and defines aircraft noise and accident potential areas, and
released to local jurisdictions with recommendations for use in the
local planning.
Although most AICUZ implementation will be carried out by local
communities, an analysis of past aircraft accidents revealed that
accident potential is so severe in an expanded clear zone area at the
ends of active runways that the required restrictions would preclude
any logical development alternatives. It is in this area that the
Department must acquire the necessary real property interests to
prevent incompatible land use. The Committee feels that this ap-
proach, a combination of Federal, state and local actions, is the most
effective and efficient method to solve this problem.. The Committee
calls upon affected state and local governments to act upon and
implement AICUZ plans at the earliest possible time. In order to
fulfill the Federal government responsibility, the Committee has
recommended including an appropriation of $10,000,000 in consonance
with authorization action to extend authorities granted in the 1973
and 1974 programs.
In fiscal year 1976, the Air Force plans to build additional semi-
hardened aircraft shelters and associated support in the second
increment of a multi-year airfield survivability program. Due to
the size and magnitude of the total program to shelter all tactical
fighter and reconnaissance aircraft planned to deploy to Europe
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/2Q27CIA-RDP77MOOl44RO01100180001-3
in the event of hostilities, the Air Force plans to accomplish it in
increments.
Adequate protection of this tactical force is a matter of survivability.
Studies and, experience show that a well balanced active and passive
defense system dramatically increases the capability of our forces
to survive and successfully fight a non-nuclear campaign. The aircraft
shelter, coupled with a strong anti-aircraft point defense, is probably
the most effective measure for improving aircraft survivability.
The Congress provided $54.5 million in the fiscal year 1975 Military
Construction Program for 132 aircraft shelters as the initial increment
of the continuing program. Although the shelters were eligible for
direct NATO funding, prefinancing permits the achievement of addi-
tional aircraft shelter protection 15 months sooner than possible
through the earliest NATO infrastructure program. In the intervening
period, the Air Force has programmed all remaining eligible shelters
for direct NATO funding and is persistently pressing NATO to expand
the eligibility criteria in order to recoup prefinanced investments
and reduce the need for US funds.
Approval has been received from NATO that the new US third
generation aircraft shelter and flush mounted front closure design
complies with NATO criteria. The new shelter will accommodate the
gamut of US tactical fighters including the F-15, A-10, and F-111.
Construction contracts were awarded in June 1975 for 82 of these
shelters and support. The existing NATO international competitive
bidding procedures provide equity for US contractors seeking con-
tracts for aircraft shelters, as well as, NATO funded construction.
These procedures are generally being followed and assure that US
contractors are afforded an opportunity in the competition. The
specified weapons effect testing of the shelter flush closure required
by the Congress will be completed in October 1975. This will allow
sufficient time to incorporate any necessary modifications to the
closures before installation, should they be necessary.
The Committee is convinced of the operational urgency to shelter
our tactical aircraft which are in-place or planned for deployment to
Europe in the event of hostilities. Consequently, the Committee
recommends approval of $52.7 million of the $175 million request
as the second increment of the continuing Air Force program to
improve air base hardening in Europe for our tactical fighter aircraft.
DIVISION STATIONING
In this year's program, the Army is continuing its efforts begun in
the fiscal year 1975 budget to provide facilities that will support the
stationing of a 16 Division Army. Last year, the Congress authorized
$55,067,000 for projects at Forts Ord, Polk, and Stewart/Hunter, the
Army's new division posts. For fiscal year 1976 the Army is requesting
$141,594,000 for these three installations. The Committee notes that
only about 16 percent of this construction is truly unique to the divi-
sion stationing plan and that the remainder would be required under
any circumstances to reduce the Army's existing backlog of con-
struction. Construction requirements including family housing, during
the four years following fiscal year 1976, are estimated to cost be-
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
28
tween $450-$500 million for the three new division stations. The Com-
mittee supports the Army's plan.
The committee reviewed and examined the Army's plan for estab-
lishing one-station training and decided, as did the House Appro-
priations Committee, that future study is warranted. It appears from
estimates presented to the committee that the concept has not yet been
tested to the extent that it should be before proceeding with full im-
plementation. The committee has no intent that the deletion of the
projects be considered a prejudgment of the concept.
The committee concurs with the concern of the House that before
the Army embarks on a new, expensive construction program, one-sta-
tion training should be thoroughly tested at existing installations to
determine whether the program will meet the Army's objectives. The
Army will report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate
and the House on the results of the one-station training study not
later than March 31,1976.
There has been an indication that the "one station training"
concept could threaten future Army operations at Fort Dix, New
Jersey. Fort Dix is an excellent Army post with modern structures
and in past years the Government has expended millions of dollars
to modernize this base. It is the concensus of the Committee that
Fort Dix should be utilized by the Army to its fullest potential and
present troop levels maintained.
OFFSET AGREEMENT, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
The Committee has strongly supported the concept of an offset
agreement with our NATO allies for a number of years. The Federal
Republic of Germany (FRG) makes available funds for the moderni-
zation, construction, and improvement of troop barracks and ac-
commodations for United States Forces stationed in the FRG.
An offset agreement with the FRG entered into n December 1971,
resulted in the FRG providing 600 million DM (approximately $183
million at then exchange rate) to rehabilitate troop barracks in Ger-
many for fiscal years 1972-73. Of this, $175.8 million was used to meet
Army requirements and $7.2 million was used to meet Air Force
requirements.
A follow-on offset agreement was signed in April 1974 covering
fiscal years 1974-75. This agreement made available an additional 600
million DM (approximately $228 million at the current exchange rate)
to continue the program. The Army's share was $189 million and the
Air Force's share was $39 million. The Committee notes that the
current offset agreement expires in June 1975 and supports attempts to
negotiate another follow-on agreement. The Committee is pleased with
the sharing of costs of maintaining our troops in Germany and feels
this is very appropriate since the facilities, although used by United
States Forces, will revert to the FRG when they cease to be required
by United States Forces.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/202cjCIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
Although most of the Army's urgent construction requirements are
met through regular Military Construction, Army (MCA) programing,
unanticipated requirements develop which must be accomplished on
a more timely basis than provided. by normal MCA programing.
Minor construction funding is the only method available to accom-
plish these facility needs. The Army's use of minor construction
authority in the past fiscal year covered nearly all classes of facilities
supporting Army readiness. The level of activity in minor construc-
tion in fiscal year 1975 resulted primarily from reorganization and
realignment of the Army with changes in missions or functions and
troop relocations and energy savings projects. This level of activity
is expected to continue in fiscal year 1976. Continuing cost escalation
has precluded consideration of accomplishment of some urgent and
self-amortizing projects within the $300,000 statutory cost limitation
imposed on minor construction projects. Therefore, the statutory
limitation has been increased to $400,000 in the fiscal year 1976
legislative language.
The Minor Construction authority for fiscal year 1975 was princi-
pally used to provide, alter and modify facilities to satisfy the revised
security criteria for special weapons storage. The revised security
criteria has necessitated a review of all procedures at those activities
which currently store and/or utilize special weapons in meeting Fleet
readiness requirements. Projects have been developed to expeditiously
execute those requirements necessary to correct deficiencies where
activities have been operating under waiver or access is considered
vulnerable. It is anticipated that special weapons mission or function
changes will continue to occur in fiscal year 1976. Additionally, minor
construction activity increased during the year in projects satisfying
the three year pay back criteria. Primarily, the economic analysis
type projects addressed the revising of existing operations in an effort
to reduce the expenditure of O&MN dollars and energy conservation
while continuing to meet mission requirements without impairment.
Spiraling construction costs over the past few years have limited
the Navy's ability to satisfy urgent requirements. However, with
the change increasing the limit to $400,000 for 10 USC 2674, relief
is expected which would enable the Navy to satisfy its requirements
and increase the return from the use of investment-type projects.
Construction accomplished under the Minor Construction Pro-
gram supports urgent and unforeseen requirements associated with
new or changed Air Force missions and weapon systems as well as
those projects that will amortize in less than three years. During fiscal
year 1975, this appropriation was used to provide urgently needed
support of requirements such as: nuclear storage security improve-
ments at 45 locations, F-15 beddown at Langley AFB, Solid State
Instrument Landing Systems at 15 locations, and various operational
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/2% CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
safety requirements. Three projects that will "amortize in less than 3
years were also requested at a total cost of $0.5 million.
Total fund requirements depend upon the number of situations that
arise throughout the year which cannot be deferred until the next
regular construction program. To meet such requirements, the Con-
gress appropriated $18.0 million for fiscal year 1974. As of the end of
the fiscal year, the Air Force had obligated practically all of this
amount and had $5.0 million in approved requirements awaiting avail-
ability of fiscal year 1976 appropriations. The total fund requirement
under this program has exceeded the available appropriations every
year since fiscal year 1971.
PLANNING AND DESIGN
The Army's fiscal year 1975 obligations for Planning and Design
excluding SAFEGUARD and Site Defense is expected to reach a total
of $44.5 million by the end of June 1975, leaving a carryover balance
into fiscal year 1976 of less than $1 million. In fiscal year 1974 obliga-
tions totalled $40.1 million and unobligated carryover was $5.2
million.
The $49 million requested for fiscal year 1976 and $12.1 million for
the transition quarter are required to complete design of fiscal year
1976 and prior projects and maintain progress on advance design of
fiscal year 1977 and fiscal year 1978 programs. The Army has made
significant progress in advancing the design cycle to the end that a
greater degree of design is accomplished prior to the authorization
and appropriation of construction funds which should permit im-
provement in achieving a more balanced schedule of construction
awards during the program year and thereby avoid overloading the
market at the end of the fiscal year. Earlier design completion also
offsets to some extent the impact of cost escalation on construction
programs and facilitates the development of more reliable project
estimates to support the request for construction authorization and
appropriation.
Unlikeconstruction for which cost of supervision and administration
is billed to customers at a flat rate, design services are charged at actual
costs to include both A-E contract costs and a proportionate share of
District Office supervisory and administrative costs. For the first three
quarters of fiscal year 1975, design accomplished on Army projects
averaged 5.2 percent of construction costs as compared to 5.2 percent
in fiscal year 1974, 5.3 percent in fiscal year 1973, 5.0 percent in fiscal
year 1972, and 5.4 percent in fiscal year 1971.
The progress made in advancing the design cycle is reflected in the
following comparison of design status at the same point in time for the
past three annual MCA programs:
Fiscal year 1976 program, Apr. 3D, 1975________________
Fiscal year 1975 program, Apr. 30, 1974________________
Fiscal year 1974 program, Apr. 30, 1973_________
Not
started
In concept
stage
In final
design
Design
complete
7.9
64.4
18.1
9.6
20.8
54.8
18.5
5.9
24.1
57.6
15.0
3.3
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/2031CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
Design has now been initiated on a substantial number of fiscal year
1977 projects and further improvement in earlier design completion
of that program is expected.
The Committee recognizes the impact of continuing cost escalation
on values received for the construction dollar and urges that the Army
continue its efforts to achieve timely completion of design in order to
develop reliable budget estimates for construction and lessen the im-
pact of inflation on approved programs. Management of design costs
should take into account the amount spent for design in relation to the
quality and economics achieved in construction. Earlier design starts
permit time to consider design alternatives to achieve economics and to
assure that ambiguities are eliminated which would produce costly
changes during the construction phase.
The funds provided each year for planning and design are used to
assure the development of sound scope and accurate cost estimates
for projects submitted to the Congress and to develop final designs in
time to allow award of construction contracts for those projects in the
budget year. The Navy exerts continuous management effort on the
orderly development of designs to assure timely construction awards
with minimum lost design effort. These planning funds are also used
for the desip of urgent minor and emergency construction projects,
special studies, and the preparation of standard, definitive plans. Ap-
proximately 88 percent of planning and design is done by contract with
architect-engineer firms, and the remaining 12 percent is accomplished
by Navy resources.
As of June 30, 1975, the Navy's unobligated balance of funds appro-
priated for planning and design was approximately $980,000.
This Committee recommends appropriation of $50,550,000 for plan-
ning and design. This is an increase of $9,000,000 over the Navy's
initial budget request of $41,550,000. $7,000,000 of the increase will
enable the Navy to prepare estimates and initiate timely contract
execution consistent with new schedules established pursuant to Public
Law 93-344, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control
Act of 1974. The remaining $2,000,000 is required by the Navy for
initial planning associated with an increase in the fiscal year 1978
Medical Modernization Program.
The estimated unobligated availability for Air Force design funds,
as of June 30, 1975, is $6.5 million. These funds were issued to the de-
sign agents to be ap,, )lied to the design completion of the fiscal year
1976 Military Constr iction Program currently under review by Con-
gress and should be obligated in their entirety by September 30, 1975.
The $30.0 million requested by the Air Force for fiscal year 1976
will be used to complete design on the fiscal year 1.976 program and for
the design of the fiscal year 1977 program. In response to the Budget
and Impoundment Control Act, the Air Force submitted a fiscal year
1977 Military Construction Program Authorization Request to the
Congress along with their fiscal year 1976 request. The fiscal year
1977 request approximated $1 billion. However, considerable design
effort has already been expended on the single largest item contained
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/2% CIA-RDP77MOO144RO01100180001-3
in that request, the Aeronautical Systems Test Facility programmed
at $437 million. The requested fiscal year 1976 planning and design
funds equates to less than 5 percent of the fiscal year 1977 Military
Construction Program yet to be designed.
In the past five years, the Air Force has received appropriations
for planning and design as follows :
Fiscal year: Millions
1971 ------------------------------------------------------------ $17.0
1972 ------------------------------------------------------------ 17.0
1973 ------------------------------------------------------------ 17.0
1974 ------------------------------------------------------------- 18.0
1975 ------------------------------------------------------------ 35.9
The Defense Access Road program is to respond, on fairly short
notice, to access road requirements important to national defense.
The program supplements construction of access highways to defense
activities that normally would be provided in the public roads pro-
gram with a lead time of three to five years. The Army portion of
the program in the past has averaged about $1 million per year over
the past decade. Due to the decrease in the construction requirements
for the SAFEGUARD program the remaining access road funds pre-
viously provided for that program are being utilized to accomplish
work at Army installations planned for fiscal year 1976. Therefore no
additional access road funds have been provided in this appropriation
request.
The Navy for the last several years has been subjected to sub-
stantially increased responsibilities for funding urgent access road
projects under authorization to USC, Title 23, Section 210. This in-
creased requirement has mainly stemmed from delays in funding of
matching funds from Regular Aid Highway Programs and resulting
escalation, new off station family housing project requirements, and
new regional medical facilities and weapons systems. In spite of some
increased funding in this program over the past several years, the
Navy remains in a seriously under-funded position.
The Committee, therefore, recommends increasing this item from
$3,000,000 to $5,000,000 for the backlog of normal certified access road
projects and an additional $2,200,000 specifically for TRIDENT re-
lated projects in Kitsap County, Washington, for a total of $7,200,000.
With this funding, the Navy plans to execute approved and certified
requirements as shown below :
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
33
Proposed
fiscal year
6
Location Estimated start date
funding
NAS Meridian Miss________
____________________________________ October 1975__________________
$1,318,000
:
San Diego, Calif., family housing phase III______________________________do-----------------------
386,000
Mayport, Fla., family housing-------
----------------------------------do-----------------------
639,000
-
New Orleans La., naval support activity, West Bank_________________ ---- do-----------------------
389,000
Pensacola, Ia., naval air station --------------------------------------- do-----------------------
1,027,000
Bethesda, Md., naval hospital---_ January January 1976_________________
41,000
San Diego, Calif., family housing phase IV____February 1976________________
400,000
Oceans, Va., naval air station ------------------------------------------ do-----------------------
500,000
NADC Warminister, Pa------------------------------------------------ do------------------------
300,000
Subtotal normal requirements____________________________________________________________
5,000,000
Subtotal Trident requirements____________________________________ October 1975 ------------------
2,200,000
Total----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7,200,000
There are projects which are either certified as eligible for access
roads funding or for which certification is pending that require fund-
ing during the forthcoming Fiscal Year-in the amount of $3 million.
The major project is the second and third phase of the Keesler Access
Road Complex which has been certified as eligible under the access
road program by the Office, Secretary of Defense. The estimated cost
of Phase II & III of the Keesler project is $2.3 million of which the
city of Biloxi will contribute 10 percent leaving a Defense requirement
of $2,070,000. The requirement for the additional $1 million is for
construction at the following locations :
Vandenberg AFB-------------- ------------------------------------ $200,000
Ellsworth AFB--------------------------------------------------- 300,000
MacDi11 AFB----------------------------------------------------- 100,000
Robins AFB------------------------------------------------------ 400,000
Total ----------------------------------------------------- 1,000,000
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY
The Committee recommends approval of a total of $812,942,000 for
Military Construction for the Active Forces and $113,000,000 for the
Reserve Forces.
For the Active Forces, this represents a reduction of $144,958,000
in the budget estimate of $957,900,000 and is $156,117,000 more than
the appropriation for fiscal year 1975. A detailed tabulation by in-
stallation and state is shown later in this report.
For the Budget Transition period of July 1, 1976 to September 30,
1976 the Committee recommends approval of a total of $20,000,000 for
NATO Infrastructure and $17,100,000 for General Authorization for
the Active Forces and a total of $4,000,000 for the Reserve Forces.
Army Family Housing is not included in the above figures, but is
presented in a subsequent portion of this report. A tabulation of the
Committee action by major Army Commands and Special Programs
follows :
(In thousands of dollarsi
DOD
request
House
action
Committee
recommend-
ation
1
nside the United States:
Army Forces Command________________________________________
$305,669
$265,303
$286,434
Army Training and Doctrine Command___________________________
210,375
173,731
185,472
Army Military District of Washington____________________________
2,368
0
0
Army Materiel Command_______________________________________
26,286
17, 803
21, 230
Army Communications Command_______________________________
7,932
6,432
6,420
Military Academy_____________________________________________
5,937
3,883
3,883
Army Health Services Command________________________________
16,242
16, 522
14, 022
Various locations, air pollution abatement facilities________________
15, 888
2, 359
2, 647
Various locations, water pollution abatement facilities______________
69,110
48, 021
49, 471
Various locations, dining facilities modernization__________________
16, 547
16, 547
16, 547
Various locations, energy conservation___________________________
33,077
31,963
30,429
Various locations, nuclear weapons security______________________
2,652
2,652
2,652
Outside the United States:
Army Forces Command________________________________________
3,880
1,400
1,400
Eighth United States Army_____________________________________
9,976
9,281
9,281
Army Communications Command_______________________________
412
412
412
Army Security Agency_________________________________________
1,971
1,176
1,176
Army, Eurape_________________________________________________
50,578
24,188
24,188
NATO infrastructure-------------------------------------------
80,000
80,000
70,000
Nuclear weapons security______________________________________
34,000
34,000
34,000
General support:
Planning------
----------------------------------------------
49,000
49, ODD
49,000
-
Minor construction____________________________________________
20,000
20, 000
20,000
Total newobligationalauthority -------------------------------
961,90D
804,673
828,664
Unobligated balance available to finance fiscal year 1976 program -------
41000
16, 336
15, 722
U.B. ARMY FORCES COMMAND
The Appropriation request of $305,669,000 was to provide 43 projects
at 13 U.S. Army Forces Command installations. It is recommended
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
35
that three projects be deneied authorization. These projects are the land
acquisition at Fort Carson, the Third ROTC Region Headquarters at
Fort Riley and the Post Office at Fort Stewart/Hunter.
The House deleted the acquisition of mineral rights at Fork Polk
and the tactical equipment shops at Fort Stewart. Their restoration
by the Committee is recommended based on demonstrated need. The
tactical equipment shops at Fort Campbell, the barracks complex at
Fort Lewis and the barracks complex at Fort Stewart were reduced in
scope by the House. These projects have all been restored to full scope
based on a review of requirements. Individual projects are discussed
in the following paragraphs.
To provide facilities for consolidation of Defense Activities in the
Boston area, $8,000,000 for the modernization of the Fargo Building
project is recommended.
At Fort Bragg, the projects include a $485,000 flight simulator
building, tactical equipment shops and facilities for $2,208,000, a new
barracks for $4,033,000 and barracks modernization for $6,488,000.
The program for Fort Campbell provides a range center complex
for $706,000, tactical equipment shops and facilities for $5,163,000,
barracks support facilities for $6,831,000 and elevated water storage
tanks for $980,000.
The barracks support facilities for Fort Carson are $10,732,000.
For Fort Hood, the projects provide a $461,000 flight simulator
building, tactical equipment shops and facilities for $4,683,000, a den-
tal clinic for $1,489,000, barracks modernization for $10,084,000 and
a barracks complex at $29,564,000.
At Fort Sam Houston, the water storage tank is considered a low
priority project and is deferred.
At Fort Lewis the projects include a $2,830,000 tactical equipment
shop and a barracks complex for $29,031,000.
The aircraft maintenance facility at Fort Meade is $2,892,000.
For Fort Ord the projects include a $227,000 rifle platoon attack
course, tactical equipment shops and facilities for $7,575,000, a dental
clinic for $1,626,000 and barracks modernization for $22,781,000.
Projects for Fort Polk include tank trails for $4,281,000, tactical
equipment shops and facilities for $5,299,000, a barracks complex for
$38,107,000, two elevated water tanks for $1,637,000, acquisition of
mineral rights for $5,037,000 and deficiency funding of $15,260,000 to
complete projects authorized and funded in the fiscal year 1974
program.
The airfield paving and lighting project at $1,140,000 and street im-
provements are $545,000 for Fort Richardson.
The program at Fort Riley provides a flight simulator building for
$478,000, -a tracked vehicle road and wash facility for $1,544,000, three
tactical equipment shops and facilities for $6,854,000, a dental clinic
for $1,492,000 and barracks modernization for $4,511,000.
At Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield the projects include a
$614,000 CIDC Field Operations building, $3,716,000 for tactical
equipment shops and facilities, a $518,000 cold storage warehouse
addition, and a barracks complex for $34,632,000.
The Committee recommends approval of the projects as discussed.
The Committee recommends approval of an appropriation of
$1,900,000 for modernization of existing permanent barracks for
bachelor enlisted personnel at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. This is in
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
36
addition to $7,827,000 approved last year. These additional funds
will allow the Army to proceed with the necessary modernization of
an entire barracks quadrangle in one increment. This will minimize
the disruption of operations at Schofield and allow completion of the
modernization project at a low cost.
The Appropriation request of $210,375,000 was for 30 projects at
11 installations. The project for the Defense Language School at Lack-
land AFB was denied in Authorization.
The House deleted the training facilities and the reception station
at Fort Benning and made a $614,000 general cut. The training facil-
ities are restored to support basic training and the general cut is re-
stored based on its having been an administrative error. The House also
deleted the pier utilities at Fort Eustis, the signal school addition at
Fort Gordon, the flight simulator building at Fort Knox, the de-
ficiency request at Fort Jackson and the aeromedical laboratory at
Fort Rucker. Except for the deficiency request, these projects are
restored based on demonstrated requirements. Individual projects
are discussed below.
The projects for Fort Benning include $1,080,000 for concrete
bunkers, a $504,000 flight simulator building, training facilities for
$3,275,000, a trainee barracks complex for $28,400,000 and $1,409,000
for a dental clinic authorized but not funded in the fiscal year 1975
program.
To complete the ranger training complex authorized and funded in
fiscal year 1974, the deficiency request of $511,000 is recommended for
E lin AFB.
The pier utilities project for berthing U.S. Army vessels at Fort
Eustis is $633,000.
At Fort Gordon the projects provide $736,000 for fuel oil storage
tanks, an addition to the signal school at $1,335,000 and barracks
modernization for $4,874,000.
At Fort Jackson $14,546,000 is required for a trainee barracks com-
plex. Deficiency funding of $2,191,000 is not recommended.
A flight simulator building for $578,000 and an addition to Ireland
Army Hospital for $42,320,000 for Fort Knox.
For Fort Lee $1,040,000 wasrequested to provide deficiency fund-
ing for the sewage plant upgrade. The sewage plant project, funded in
fiscal year 1968, will allow Fort Lee to participate with the city in the
construction of a joint use facility. The General Storehouse is con-
sidered a low priority project and its deferral is recommended.
The projects for Fort McClellan include range improvements at
$792,000, Noble Army Hospital addition and alteration for $13,055,-
0001 a dental clinic for $1,317,000, a trainee barracks complex for
$21,645,000 and utilities expansion for $1,781,000. The barracks com-
plex was reduced in scope to provide for eight companies rather than
10, based on projected requirements.
Projects for Fort Rucker provide $9,139,000 for a U.S. Army Aero-
medical Research Laboratory, $4,100,000 for a new electrical distribu-
tion system and deficiency funding of $1,845,000 for the fiscal year
1974 airfield upgrade project and a dental clinic authorized but not
funded in fiscal year 1975.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
37
A barracks complex for trainees at Fort Sill is $15,772,000.
At Fort Leonard Wood, the projects provide $2,000,000 for training
facilities improvement, $2,984,000 for ammunition storage facilities
and a deficiency of $9,801,000 to complete projects authorized and
funded in fiscal year 1974.
The Committee recommends approval of these individual projects,
except as noted above.
MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
The Appropriation request was forommi $2,368 000 for one project at
Fort Myer. The Authorization Cttee deferred the project to
relocate activities at Fort Myer in the amount of $2,368,000.
U.S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND
The Appropriation request was for $26,286,000. The ammunition
truck inspection facility at Letterkenny Army Depot, the binary muni-
tions facility at Pine Bluff Arsenal, the quality assurance laboratory,
and depot operations building addition and alteration at Red River
Army Depot were denied in authorization.
The House reduced the scope of the research animal isolation facility
at Aberdeen PG by $1,000,000. The restoration by this Committee is
recommended in that it is believed that the project was reduced to a
minimum by the Armed Services Committees. The deficiency request
for White Sands Missile Range was deleted by the House. This Com-
mittee favorably considered all but $69,000 based on demonstrated
need. The individual projects are discussed in the following para-
graphs.
At Aberdeen Proving Grounds, $7,000,000 is required for con-
struction of a research animal isolation facility.
At the Aeronautical Maintenance Center, now called Corpus Christi
Army Depot, $642,000 is needed to upgrade test cells and $1,069,000
is provided as deficiency funding for the supply building originally
authorized and funded in fiscal year 1974.
A dynamic deformation material laboratory for $351,000 and a
boiler house modernization for $625,000 is needed for the Army
Materials and Mechanics Research Center.
At Natick Laboratories $222,000 is requested for a water supply sys-
tem and $151,000 is approved to supplement the barracks in the fiscal
year 1974 program.
At Redstone Arsenal the environmental test facility for $535,000
and the dental clinic for $1,036,000 are requested.
The barracks at Sierra Army Depot is $1,160,000.
At White Sands Missile Range, the program provides $395,000 for
fixed telescope sites, $2,266,000 for mobile optical equipment sites,
$569,000 for a multi-target launch complex, $485,000 for water wells
and $2,427,000 for projects approved in fiscal year 1974.
Yuma Proving Ground requires $662,000 for a receiving and ship-
ping building, $116,000 for a range control building at Cibola Range
and $1,519,000 for deficiency funding to complete projects approved
in fiscal year 1974.
The Committee recommends approval of these individual projects.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
38
U.S. ARMY COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND
(Inside the United States)
For the U.S. Army Communications Command the program request
is for $6,420,000 for projects at two installations.
The academic facility at Fort Huachuca was reduced in scope by the
House, but restored by this Committee in order to provide a complete
and usable facility. The approved projects at Fort Iluachuca will pro-
vide Phase I of academic buildings at $5,315,000, and a solar energy
plant at $690,000. The dental clinic is a low priority project and its
deferral is recommended.
At Camp Roberts the project will provide upgraded power at the
satellite terminal for $415,000.
The Committee recommends approval of the projects in this section,
except for the dental clinic.
U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY
At the Military Academy, the program would provide $3,883,000
for two projects. These projects will provide consolidated service
facilities for $2,491,000 and separate power and communication ducts
for $1,392,000.
The Committee recommends approval of the projects in this section.
U.S. ARMY HEALTH SERVICES COMMAND
For the U.S. Army Health Services Command the program requests
$13,742,000 for projects at two installations.
At Fort Detrick, Maryland, a satellite terminal is needed for
$972,000.
At the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C.,
deficiency funding for the hospital is $11,690,000. The Tri-Service
Medical Information System is reduced to $1,080,000. Funds from
other appropriations should be used for the equipment.
The Committee recommends approval of the projects in this section.
(Inside the United States)
The Appropriation request was for $84,998,000. The Authorization
Committee denied $27,258,000 request to complete projects authorized
in fiscal year 1972 and fiscal year 1973.
In support of the national goal in reducing environmental pollu-
tion the Committee recommends $52,118,000 to provide air and water
pollution abatement facilities. Of this total $2,647,000 are for air pollu-.
tion abatement projects and $49,471,000 for water pollution control
projects. This is approximately 70 percent over the amount requested
and approved in fiscal year 1975. This reflects the onset of require-
ments growing from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972. As these requirements develop further, even larger
sums are anticipated for pollution abatement efforts in future MCA
programs.
The ammunition demilitarization disposal system at Savanna Army
Depot is no longer required and is deleted. The red water flume lines
at Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant was deleted for the same
reason. This agrees with the House action. The House also deleted the
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100180001-3
39
two pollution projects at Joliet Army Ammunition Plant on the
basis that the plant is to be phased out. These projects, however, are
still required, even with the plant in a standby status. Accordingly,
the Committee recommends restoration of $288,000 for the full scope
contaminated waste incinerator and $1,450,000 for the red water
ash and storage facility. This is a reduction of $2,375,000 but will pro-
vide the necessary facility.
(Inside the United States)
To continue the Dining Facilities Modernization Program the
Committee recommends $16,547,000. This will provide 60 modernized
facilities at 11 installations. This project is an important facet in
the Army's program to improve overall service life.
(Inside the United States)
To provide Energy Conservation measures the Committee recom-
mends $30,429,000. This is the first of a five year program aimed at
reducinenergy consumption at Army installations. These are con-
sidered-high return projects as the average amortization period in
five years based on present fuel prices. The project for building insula-
tion at Fort Lewis for $1,534,000 is no longer required and is therefore
deleted.
(Inside the United States)
For various locations in the United States, the Committee recom-
mends approval of $2,652,000 for improved Nuclear Weapons
Security.
(Outside of the United States)
For the U.S.A. Forces Command Overseas the Committee recom-
mends one project.
At Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico an Armed Forces examination
and entrance station at $2,480,000 is recommended for deletion. Use of
leased facilities should be investigated. This is in agreement with the
House.
For Fort Sherman, Canal Zone, replacement of the French Canal
Bridge is recommended for approval at $1,400,000.
For Korea, the appropriation request was for $9,976,000. The Au-
thorization Committee denied an Army Recreation Center and a
chapel. The projects recommended for approval are a $347,000 flight
simulator building, relocatable barracks for $7,393,000, a new dining
facilities for $383,000, and bachelor officers quarters at $1,131,000 for
a total cost of $9,281,000.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 4FIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
U.S. ARMY COMMUNICATIONS COMMAND
(Outside the U.S.)
The request for $412,000 deficiency funding for the fiscal year 1975
upgrade power at Futema is recommended for approval.
U.S. ARMY SECURITY AGENCY
(Outside the United States)
Bachelor Officer Quarters for $1,176,000 at ASA overseas locations
are recommended for approval.
U.S. ARMY EUROPE
The Appropriation request for U.S. Army, Europe was for $150,-
587,000. One project, improvements for the Nuernberg hospital in the
amount of $24,390,000 was denied in authorization.
The program recommended for approval would provide $90,000,000
for NATO Infrastructure, ($70,000,000 in fiscal year 1976 and $20,-
000,000 in the Transition) $20,599,000 for various locations in Ger-
many and $3,589,000 for Camp Darby, Italy.
For Germany, the recommended projects provide improved am-
munition storage at various locations for $8,044,000, hardstands and
shops at Gelnhausen for $791,000, a medical-dental clinic at Bamberg
for $3,055,000 and dependent schools at Schweinfurt, Pirmasens, Augs-
burg and Kitzingen for $8,709,000.
At Camp Darby, the recommended program provides improved am-
munition storage.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY
(Outside the United States)
For improved Nuclear Weapons Security at various overseas loca-
tions, the Committee recommends approval of $34,000,000.
PRIOR YEAR CARRY-OVER
The Committee recommends a general cut of $11,442,000 as a result of
savings on central food preparation facilities that were funded in prior
year programs at Forts Benning and Lee. The House made this same
cut.
CONTINUING AUTHORIZATION
To provide for planning and design and urgent minor construction
the Committee recommends $86,100,000. This is broken down as
follows :
Planning------:----------------------------------------------------------- $49,000,000 $12,100,000
Minor construction---------------------------------------------------------- 20,000,000 5,000,000
ARMY
(Reserve Components)
The Committee notes that the Army is continuing its aggressive
policy of providing adequate facilities for the effective training and
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
41
improved readiness of its Reserve Components under the Total Force
Policy. The $113 million requested will provide a balanced program
with $62.7 million for the Army National Guard and $50.3 million for
the Army Reserve.
The Army National Guard construction appropriation of $62.7
million will provide 58 armories and 60 non-armories projects to be
constructed in 38 states, and Puerto Rico. The non-armory projects
consists of six aviation facilities, 23 training facilities, 30 vehicle
maintenance facilities and one USPFO warehouse.
The Army Reserve construction appropriation of $50.3 million
will be applied to the most critical requirements providing 41 projects
located in 25 states and the Territory of Guam. Facilities must be
available to train, administer, store weapons and materials and main-
tain assigned equipment. This years program will provide 14 new
centers, 15 expansion and 12 other facilities. Three of the new centers
will utilize solar energy for both heating and cooling.
Approval is so recommended.
ARMY
SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION ACTIONS
[A summary of the authorization actions taken on the program originally submitted by the Army are tabulated below
by project]
Action
(thousands)
Fort Bragg N.C_____________________________ Barracks statlimit._r -$320
Fort Campbell, k`y___._- 1 Barracks support fac (Chapels)------ ------------- 2 -1, 231
Fort Carson Colo Land Land acquisition ------------ acquisition------------------------------------- ------------------- -7,200
Fort Hood, ex______-??-________?-Barracks statlimit ------------------------------ ___ r -1,666
Fort Lewis Wash do-------- 1 -1, 862
Fort Ord, Glalif__..................... Tactical equipment shops -----------------
---_-_._._______ 681
Fort Polk, La------------------------------ Tank trails ----------- ? 1,000
Do------------------------------------ Barracks statlimit ---------------
----------------------------- r --1,838
Fort Richardson, Alaska______________________ Airfield paving and lighting__________----_-_____-___-_ s -1,402
Fort Riley, Kans----------------------------- ROTC HQ--------------?---------------
1,620
Fort Stewart, Ga---------------------------- Post office -------??--------------------------------- -620
Do------------------------------------ Barracks complex----------------------------------- 12 -1,281
Fort Banning, Ga---------------------- _______ Barracks statlimit___________-__-_____ r -1,406
---------------
o____________________________________ Recept station (barracks statlimit) ____________________ 1 -402
Fort Jackson, S.C______--------------------- Trainee barracks (Chapel) ---------------------------- 2 -682
Do------------------------------------ Barracks statlimit --------------------1 -773
Lackland AFB, TexDefense Language School ---------------------------- ---- 1,029
Fort McClellan, Ala________Barracks statlimit ----------------------------------- 1 -1,
Fort Sill,Okla______________ 741
----.do------------?---------?-------?------------- 1 -741
Fort Myer, Va-------------------- _-------- __ Relocate activities ----------------------------------- -2,368
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md________________ Research animal lab---------------- a
Corpus Christi Army Depot, Tex______________ Upgrade test cells____________ -------- 2,278
Letterkenn Army Depot, Pa ------------ ----------------------- ' -198
Ammo truck inspection fac___________________________ -198
Pine Bluff Arsenal, Ark_ -562
Binary munitions fac---______-_-_-___---_______---___ -562
Red River Army Depot, Tex__________________ Alter depot operations bld ------------- -998
-------------
Do--------------------------?-----------? Quality assurance lab----g---------------------?----- -556
Sierra Army Depot, Calif--------------------- Barracks (dining)---------------- ------------- s +223
Do---------------------------------------- Barracks statlimit ----------------------------------- 1 -96
U.S Military Academy, N.Y------------------- Roads and athletic fac-------------------------------- -2,054
Various------------------------------------ Energy investment----------------------------------- - -1,114
K-16, Korea_______________ Recreation center _--_-______-__________--___--------- -230
Camp Humphreys, Korea--------------------- Chapel --------------------------------------------- -465
Location 178 ------------------------------- Operations bldg------------------------------------- -795
Nuremberg, Germany----------------------- Hospital --------- ----------------------------------- -24,390
Camp Darby, Italy- -- _ _ - -?------------- Ammo storage ---- _--------------------------------- -2,000
Letterman Army Hospital, Calif--------------- Hospital deficiency ----------------------- ------------ 4 +280
Various____________________________________ Air pollution abatement (fiscal year 1972) -------------- -10, 109
Do________________________________________ Water pollution abatement (fiscal year 1972)____________ -11,437
Do-____-__?______________----------------- Water pollution abatement (fiscal year 1973) ------------ -5, 712
Eglin AFB, Fla______________________________ Barracks fiscal year 1974--------------------- ------- 2 -1,124
Fort Jackson, S.C--------------------------- Fiscal year 1975 Program Deficiency ------------------- 2 -1,009
Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz___________________ Fiscal year 1974 Program Deficiency---_--__--_____-___ s -329
Total reduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 94,186
I Stat limit on barracks reduced from $39.50 to $35 per square foot.
2 Partial reduction.
a Funding required.
4 To be funded from prior year appropriations.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY
The Committee recommends approval of $799,326,000 for Military
Construction for the active forces of the Navy and Marine Corps and
$36,400,000 for the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve, for a total of
$835,726,000.
For the Active Forces, this represents a reduction of $54,674,000 in
the budget estimate of $854,000,000. The recommended amounts are
detailed later by state or overseas location and by installation. The
amounts recommended for Navy and Marine Corps family housing
are included in the separate total recommended for "Family Housing,
Defense."
For the Budget Transition period of July 1, 1976 to September 30,
1976, the Committee recommends a total of $17,200,000 for the Active
Forces and $400,000 for the Reserve Forces.
The Committee recommends action by Naval District and special
programs as follows :
APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY BY NAVAL DISTRICT
[In thousands of dollars]
DOD
request
House
action
Recommended
Senate
action
Inside the United States:
1st Naval District___________________________________0
$2,800
$4,800
3d Naval District_____________________________________________
$18,997
16,242
18,542
Naval District, Washington, D.C---------------------------------
r 181,753
172, 399
180
106
5th Naval District_____________________________________________
29,347
16,954
,
24
571
6th Naval District_____________________________________________
32,799
29,421
,
34,121
8th Naval District_____________________________________________
26,939
26,756
26
756
9th Naval District_____________________________________________
11,599
11,599
,
11,599
11th Naval District____________________________________________
62,843
53,529
47,090
12th Naval District____________________________________________
3,435
3,435
3
435
13th Naval District___________________________________ ______
37,247
35,247
,
37,247
14th Naval District____________________________________________
12,947
6,469
16,903
Marine Corps_________________________________________________
59
001
57
032
55
947
Various locations:
TRIDENT facilities (fiscal year 75 including 13th naval district)-
,
186, 967
,
116
967
,
967
166
Pollution abatement-Air ---------------------------------- .
3,262
,
2,843
,
2,843
.Pollution a batement-Water-------------------------------
44,827
44,654
44,827
Energy conservation ------------------------- ,--------------
28,828
28,828
25,734
Nuclear weapons security__________________________________
6,580
6,580
6,580
Outside the United States:
10th Naval District____________________________________________
2,128
2,128
128
2
Atlantic Ocean area ---------------------- .----------------------
3,792
3,792
,
78
European area------------------------------------------------
3,732
0
0
Indian Ocean area ---------------------------------------------
13,800
13
800
13
800
Pacific Ocean area____________________________________________
17
277
,
1
200
,
200
1
Various locations:
Pollution abatement-Air
,
0
,
0
,
0
Pollution abatement-Water --------------------------------
250
250
250
Patrol Aircraft Training facilities----------------------------
1,100
0
0
Total outside the United States___________________________
42,079
21, 170
17,456
See footnote at end of table.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
44
APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY BY NAVAL DISTRICT-Continued
[In thousands of dollars[
DOD
request
House
action
Recommended
Senate
action
Total projects ---------------------------------------------------
$789,450
$652, 925
$725, 524
Continuing authority:
--------------------------------------
-
Planning and design
41,550
50,550
50,550
-
---
Urgent minor construction--------------------------------------
20, 000
20, 000
20, 000
Access roads------------------------------------------------
3,000
7, 200
7, 200
Total continuing authorization--------------------------------------
64, 550
77, 750
77, 750
Total obligation authority------------------------------------------
1 854, 000
30,675
803, 274
Funding adjustment land acquisition:
Land acquisition: fiscal year 1974 Jacksonville--------------------
Funding adjustment----------------------------------------------
0
1,948
3,948
New obligation authority-------------------------------------------
No projects were requested by the Navy for this district. The Com-
mittee recommends approval of $4,800,000.
For the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine, the Armed
Services Committees amended a fiscal year 1974 project. The amend-
ment in the amount of $2,800,000 will provide a portion of a 20 foot
gauge crane rail system to permit the use of portal cranes being trans-
ferred from the Boston Naval Shipyard. This amendment to the Ad-
ditional Crane Rail System project will satisfy the most urgent re-
quirements, but additional authority and appropriations will be re-
quired to complete all of the work as originally planned. The Com-
mittee concurs in funds for the amendment.
At the Naval Underwater Systems Center.. Newport, Rhode Island,
which is the principal Research Development Testing and Evalua-
tion Center the Committee recommends adding $2,000,000 for a project
support facility authorized in fiscal year 1975. This facility will pro-
vide storage space for fleet weapons returned to the Center for the de-
velopment of modifications to improve weapon system performance.
The projects added in this district by the House or recommended by
this Committee are shown in the following table :
Budget
request
House
action
Senate
action
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine: Additional crane rail system
(fiscal year 1974 amendment)____________________ _
0
+$2,800
+$2,800
Naval Underwater Systems Center, Newport, Rhode Island: Project sup-
portfacility-----------------------------------------------------
0
()
1
2,000
For the Third Naval District, the Committee recommends approval
of $18,542,000 for 7 projects in the States of Connecticut, New Jersey,
and New York. The most significant projects are for the Naval Sub-
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/2045 IA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
marine Base, New London, Connecticut. The projects are: (1) the
berthing pier, which will provide the first 2 berths to accommodate all
classes of Nuclear Attack Submarines (SSN) including the high speed
688 class. The construction includes dredging and demolition of 2 un-
usable timber piers to make 3 existing berths adequate; (2) a floating
drydock mooring facility project which will provide a facility for
mooring a floating drydock which has the required capacity to dock the
637 long hull and 688 nuclear submarines; (3) the dredge river chan-
nel project which will complete a dredging project approved in fiscal
year 1973 which includes 7.5 miles of river channel deepening from 32'
to 36' between Long Island Sound and the Sub Base. This project will
enable the SSN 688 Class ships to be homeported at the Sub Base by
1977; and (4) a bachelor enlisted quarters project which will provide
adequate living spaces for 300 E2-E4 personnel and 80 E5-E6 per-
sonnel.
The project reduced in this district by the House is shown in the fol-
lowing table :
Installation/project
Budget House Senate
request action action
Naval Submarine Base, New London, Conn.: Berthing pier ---------------- $4, 940 -$2, 300 (1)
The Navy's request for a new berthing pier at the Naval Sub-
marine Base, New London, has been reduced by the House from
$4,940,000 to $2,640,000. This reduction denies funding to construct
an urgently needed pier facility for new SSN 688 class submarines
to be assigned to the New London Base. The funding approved will
only permit work to proceed on other urgently needed waterfront
facilities such as a quaywall and supporting facilities.
The Submarine Base's mission is being expanded to include the
support of new SSN-688 class attack submarines which will begin
to enter the Fleet in early 1.976. The new SSN-688's are much larger
than earlier submarines, in both length and draft. None of the exist-
ing piers are adequate for SSN-688 support, due mainly to insuffi-
cient length. An urgent need exists for a new pier designed to satisfy
SSN-688 needs; therefore, the Committee recommends restoration of
the $2,300,000 cut from this project.
NAVAL DISTRICT WASIIINGTON, D.C.
A total of $180,106,000 is recommended for approval for projects
in the Naval District Washington. The significant projects approved
are discussed in the following paragraphs.
At the Naval Research Laboratory, the electromagnetic develop-
ment laboratory project was approved to provide a single integrated
facility for electronic warfare research.
The National Naval Medical Center modernization project which
will construct a new teaching hospital is recommended for approval.
This project will include 500 acute care beds. Two existing buildings
will he remodeled in subsenuent project phases to provide 125 light
care beds and 125 psychiatric beds for a total of 750 beds.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/2400: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
For the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences the
Committee strongly recommends approval of the University project
which provides for the completion of multi-purpose and anatomy
laboratories, the completion of university administration space, an
addition to general teaching and support areas; an increase in space
for both basic science and clinical science faculty research ; and the
development of underground parking which will form the pedestal
for the total university. A reduction of $7,400,000 was made to this
project by the Armed services Committees for deferring a portion of
the underground parking to Increment IV. The Department of De-
fense is currently studying the advisability of providing only a Medi-,
cal School, or a University which would include Dental, Nursing,
Allied Health, Pharmacy and Veterinary Schools. With a requirement
for only a Medical School, the parking may be reduced by 50 spaces,
leaving a total of 980 spaces to Support the Medical School.
For the Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, Virginia the
surface weapons system facility project will provide the laboratory
with the capability to keep pace with expanding technology and de-
velopment concepts in Naval gunnery.
The projects added, denied or reduced for this district by the House
and the recommendations of this Committee are shown in the follow-
ing table :
[in thousands of dollarsi
Budget House Senate
request action action
Headquarters Naval District, Washington; Tingey House restoration----- $400 -$100 -$400
Naval Academy, Annapolis Md.:
Luce Hall addition and modernization____________________________ 0 (' +6,450
Landfill and site improvements--------------------------------- 0 (1) +378
Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Carderock, Md.: Heating
plant improvement______________________________________________ 550 -550 -550
Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, Md.: Dispensary/dental clinic----- 0 (I) +1,179
The House reduced by $100,000 the Tingey House restoration proj-
ect, because it felt that $300,000 was all that was required to restore
the original period architecture of the house. The Committee under-
stands the present facility may be utilized as is for the ceremonial
functions planned by the Navy. The Committee believes the preserva-
tion of the historic significance of this house should be by subscription
from interested parties and organizations. Accordingly, it is recom-
mended that appropriations for this project be denied.
At the Naval Academy, Annapolis, $6,828,000 is recommended for
two projects authorized in fiscal year 1975, but which the Navy had to
defer because appropriations were limited to $36,300,000 for the Naval
District Washington. The Committee believes both projects are im-
portant to the modernization of facilities at the Naval Academy, and
therefore added funds so that construction may be started on these
projects upon passage of the fiscal year 1976 Military Construction
Appropriations Act.
For the Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, Maryland, the Com-
mittee added $1,179,000 for the restoration of the Dispensary/Dental
mittee recommends adding $1,179,000 for the restoration of the Dis-
pensary/Dental Clinic severely damaged by fire on March 7, 1975.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/2047F IA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
The Committee recommends approval of $24,571,000 for 8 projects
in the Fifth Naval District. The major projects, all located in the
State of Virginia, are discussed below :
For the Commander-in-Chief Atlantic Fleet, Norfolk, Virginia a
main evaluation center is needed. The additional space is required
for new, automated, intelligence processing equipment being procured
under a separate Navy budget. The new equipment will enable the
main evaluation center in Norfolk to process data gathered by several
remote stations, including a new facility, also undergoing a simul-
taneous equipment upgrade.
At the Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia, the Navy advised dur-
ing the hearings that a change had been made in the trainers to be
housed in the addition for the Operational Trainer Building. It was
originally planned to install an F-4J Night Carrier Landing Trainer
and an F-14 landing trainer. The Navy has determined that the F-14
Weapons System Trainer will be sufficiently versatile to handle both
weapons systems and carrier landing simulations. Even with this
change in the F-14 trainer, the Navy indicated that the full scope of
the project is needed this year. The Committee concurs in the need for
this project to house F-4J and F-14 trainers, since it agrees with the
principle of transferring to simulators as many flight hours as feasible.
At the Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia, there are four
significant projects recommended for approval.
The ammunition segregation facility project will construct a new
facility to segregate fleet return gun type ammunition prior to reno-
vation, storage or disposal.
The projectile renovation facility project will replace a facility at
St. Juliens Creek Annex, Portsmouth, Virginia, which renovates
medium and major caliber projectiles.
The CAPTOR weapons systems facilities project will alter an exist-
ing facility to house CAPTOR weapons system assembly/test, mainte-
nance and explosive components to meet production schedules for
delivery to all activities to be supported by this East Coast facility.
The projectile magazines project will provide primary capability
for supply of gun ammunition to ships based on the East Coast.
The projects denied in this district by the House and this Com-
mittee's recommendations are shown in the following table :
Installation/project Budget House Senate
request action action
Fleet Combat Direction Systems Train ng Center, Dam Neck, Va.: Bach-
elor enlisted quarters -------------------------------------------- '$4,383 (s) -$4,383
Naval weapons station, Yorktown, Va.:
Projectile renovation facility ------- _--------- _.................. - 4,458 -$4,458 (s)
Ammunition segregation facility .... ------ ______________---__.-- 2,055 -2,055 ((5
Projectile magazine -------------------------------------------- 5,487 -5,487
Total ------------------------------------------------------------------- -12,000 -4,383
' As authorized-Authorization Act reduced $393,000 from original requested amount of $4,776,000.
2 No change.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
At the Fleet Combat Direction Systems Training Center, Dam
Neck, Virginia, the low priority bachelor enlisted quarters project was
denied.
The three projects denied by the House at the Naval Weapons Sta-
tion, Yorktown, Virginia, are associated with relocation of ammuni-
tion segregation, projectile renovation, and gun ammunition storage
and issue functions from the St. Juliens Creek Annex to Yorktown.
The Committee 'believes the explosive hazards associated with opera-
tions at St. Juliens Creek should be eliminated as soon as practicable,
therefore it recommends restoration of the three projects denied by
the House.
The Committee recommends approval of $34,121,000 for 17 projects
in the Sixth Naval District. The significant approved projects are
located in the States of Florida, and South Carolina, and discussed.
in the following paragraphs :
At the Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, Florida, the Committee
recommends approval of a restrictive use easement acquisition project
which will protect the operational capability of NAS Cecil Field and
its primary approach,/departure route from' incompatible community
development.
For the Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida, the Armed Forces
Reserve Center which will serve the combined needs of the Reserves in
Jacksonville is recommended for approval.
At the Naval Station, Mayport, Florida, the bachelor enlisted quar-
ters project will accommodate 312 E2-E4 personnel.
At the Naval Hospital, Orlando, Florida, the warehouse and dental
clinic project will construct a medical logistics support building, a
service school command dental clinic, and alter existing health care
facilities at the recruit training center-
At the Naval Training Center (Service School Command), Orlando,
Florida, an applied instruction building is needed, which will pro-
vide space for basic electronics and electrical and signalmen and
quartermaster courses.
For the Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida, a general warehouse
project will eliminate the severe shortage in warehouse space needed
for storage of repairable items of 25 aircraft and 6 aircraft engines
with an inventory value of $145 million.
The projects added and denied in this district by the House and this
Committee's recommendations are shown in the following table :
Installation/project
Budget
request
House
action
Senate
action
Naval air station, Jacksonville Fla.: Aircraft fire and rescue station-----
$598
(r)
-$598
Naval station, Mayport, Fla.: Aadiac repair and calibration facility--.----
290
((r)
-290
Naval training center, Orlando, Fla.: Applied instruction building_______
5,588
-$5,588
(9
2
Naval air station, Whiting Field, Fla. : Instrument trainer facility --------
0
+500
+5
Naval station, Charleston, S.C.: Bainbridge Avenue estension___________
0
+2,100
+2,100
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : C--RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
At the Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, and the Naval Station,
Mayport, Florida, the Committee recommends denying two low-pri-
ority projects. The Committee recommends approval of the Applied
Instruction Building denied by the House at the Naval Training Cen-
ter, Orlando, Florida.
The space provided by this project is needed for conducting courses
for the Basic Electronics and Electrical Training School and the
Signalman/Quartermasters School. The Committee believes it is im-
portant to provide this year adequate facilities for conducting basic
courses that form the background for other training Navy personnel
will receive during the course of their Navy careers. Since this course
is a prerequisite to 25 percent of advanced training courses for the
Navy, the Committee believes that it will be economically advantageous
to conduct this training at each of the basic training centers.
The Committee concurs with the action of the Armed Services Com-
mittees in adding projects for an Instrument Trainer Facility at the
Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Florida and the Extension of
Bainbridge Avenue at the Naval Station, Charleston, South Carolina.
The funding was provided for the Instrument Trainer Facility and
the Bainbridge Avenue Extension project added by the Armed Forces
Committee. The Instrument Trainer project will permit the substitu-
tion of simulator hours for flying hours with attendant savings in fuel
and operating costs. The Bainbridge Avenue Extension project will
eliminate an explosive safety hazard.
For the Eighth Naval District, the Committee recommends ap-
proval of $26,756,000 for three projects at two Naval installations in
the State of Louisiana.
For the Naval Personnel Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, the ad-
ministrative complex project will provide space to house operational
elements of the Bureau of Naval Personnel which will be moved from
Washington, D.C. to New Orleans.
At the Naval Support Activity, New Orleans, the bachelor enlisted
quarters project will be designed to accommodate 186 E2-E4 and 44
E5-E6 personnel.
For the Ninth Naval District, the Committee recommends approval
of $11,599,000 for three projects at two Naval installations. The major
projects are discussed below.
For the Naval Training Center (Service School Command), Great
Lakes, Illinois, a technical training building project will provide the
specially configured classrooms and laboratories required to support
engineman, operations specialist and instructor training schools. The
training buildings addition and alteration project will alter 3 build-
ings to permit effective electronic training. The growth of electronic
equipment in the Fleet coupled with the closure of the Electronics
Training School at Treasure Island has increased the electronics tech-
nician and basic electricity and electronics training by 60 percent and
100 percent over the last 5 years, respectively.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
In the Eleventh Naval District, the Committee recommends ap-
proval of $47,090,000 for 11 projects at 6 Naval installations in the
State of California.
The significant projects approved are discussed below.
For the Naval Air Station, Miramar, California, there are three
projects and funding for an amendment that are recommended.
The operational training building project will provide space for, an
F-4J Night Carrier Landing Trainer, an Air Combat, Maneuvering
Flight Trainer and provide necessary supporting facilities and sound
suppression facilities for the F-14, F-4, F-8 and A-4 multi-purpose
aircraft.
The restrictive use easement acquisition project will acquire case-
ments to protect the operational capability of Miramar and its pri-
mary aircraft departure routes from incompatible community devel-
opment.
For the Naval Air Station, North Island, California, two significant
projects are included. The aircraft parking apron project will pro-
vide an aircraft parking, apron for forty S-3A aircraft, and the ammu-
nition pier will consolidate ordnance handling and storage facilities.
At the Electronics Laboratory Center, San Diego, California, an
electronics development and testing laboratory project, third incre-
ment, will provide a controlled electronic environment laboratory space
with electromagnet shielding for total development and testing of
command control, communications and surveillance systems.
The projects denied or reduced in the Eleventh Naval District by
the House and this Committee's recommendations are, shown in the
following table :
fin thousands of dollars]
Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, Calif.: Electrical system
improvements------------------------------------------------- $3,322
Naval Air Station, Miramar, Calif.:
Bachelor enlisted quarters------------------------------------- 23 ,117
Aircraft maintenance hangar (fiscal year 1975 amendment) --------- 1,960
r No change.
r Original request $3,429,000-unit-cast reduction.
(1) -$3, 322
-3,117
-$1, 63? -1, 627
-1, 627 -8, 066
For the fiscal year 1975 amendment for the Aircraft Maintenance
Hangar at the Naval Air Station, Miramar, California, it is possible
to reduce the appropriated amount. Bids received subsequent to the
budget submission have been lower than expected which reduces the
total authorization and appropriations required.
The Committee also denied a low priority electrical system improve-
ments project at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, and a low-priority
bachelor enlisted quarters project at the Naval Air Station, Miramar,
California.
In the Twelfth Naval District the Committee recommends approval
of $3,435,000 for 4 projects at 4 installations in the States of Cali-
fornia and Nevada.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 IA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
The significant project was a taxiway overlay project for the Naval
Air Station, Moffett Field, California. This project will provide a
concrete overlay of the East taxiway and will reconstruct the holding
area.
THIRTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
In the Thirteenth Naval District, the Committee recommends ap-
proval of $37,247,000 for 6 projects at 4 Naval Installations in the
States of Alaska and Washington.
For the Naval Regional Medical Center, Bremerton, Washington,
the hospital complex requested would provide a 170-bed replacement
hospital with 130 acute care beds and 40 light care beds and provide
modern care to the eligible population in the Bremerton/Bangor area.
The project reduced in the Thirteenth Naval District by the House
is shown in the following table :
Budget House Senate
request action action
Naval Regional Medical Center, Bremerton, Wash.: Hospital complex____ $29,959 -$2,000 (r)
I No change.
The Committee recommends restoration of $2,000,000 for the
Hospital Complex at Bremerton, Washington. The House approved
135 beds, but included within the total 40 light care beds for convales-
cent active duty personnel. The Committee considers that greater
flexibility in the management of medical care will be provided by the
provision of 130 acute care beds, and 40 light care beds.
FOURTEENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
In the Fourteenth Naval District the Committee recommends app
proval of $16,903,000 for 6 projects at 5 Naval installations in the
State of Hawaii.
The most significant projects are discussed below.
For the Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the Fleet Command
Center project will provide space for new and integrated command
and control systems that are scheduled for full operational capability
in December 1977.
For the Naval Submarine Base, the berthing wharf improvements
project, will provide dredging and modifications to an existing wharf
to permit operation of a medium floating drydock. This drydock will
be used for unscheduled emergency and minor work on the bottoms
of submarines, and precludes trying to schedule this type of work into
the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard.
At the Naval Communication Station, Honolulu, Wahiawa, Hawaii,
the Satellite Communications Terminal project will provide com-
munications support for Navy Shore Establishment and the Naval
Operating Forces in the Pacific Ocean area. This project will expand
the existing satellite communications facility to permit installation of
a second satellite communications terminal and a broadcast terminal.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
The projects added, denied or reduced in the Fourteenth Naval
District by the House and this Committee's recommendations are
shown in the following table :
Installation/project Budget House Senate
request action action
Omega Navigation Station, Haiku, Oahu, Hawaii: Transmitter facility
(fiscal year 1971 amendment)______________________ 0 +$600 +$600
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard Hawaii: Machine shop modernization-_--- 0 0 +3, 356
Naval station, Pearl Harbor, ilawaii: Fleet command center ------------ $7,078 -7,078 (1)
Total ------------------------------------------------------------------- -6,478 +3,956
Funds were requested for the fiscal year 1971 amendment for the.
transmitter facility project at Omega Navigation Station, Haiku,
Oahu. This amendment was added by the Armed Services Committees
to permit timely payment of a settled contractor claim. The House
approved funds for this amendment.
The House denied the Fleet Command Center project on the basis
that space available or soon to be vacated by headquarters in Hawaii
should have been investigated by the Navy as a site for the functions
of this facility. The Committee recommends restoration of the project
because it believes that additional space in close physical proximity to
the Fleet Intelligence Center is neeaed for effectively carrying out
command and control of Naval forces in the Pacific.
At the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, the Committee recommends
adding funds for the Machine Shop Modernization project authorized
in Fiscal Year 1975, as it understand this project is an urgent require-
ment for modernization of the shipyard.
The Committee recommends approval of $55,947,000 for 14 Projects
at 10 Marine Corps installations in the States of South Carolina,
North Carolina, Arizona, California, and Hawaii.
The Marine Corps has dedicated a major portion of its construction
efforts to bachelor housing facilities for the past seven fiscal years.
The Marine Corps is convinced that the provision of modern and
reasonably comfortable living accommodations for bachelor marines
is in the best interest of both the Marine and the Corps. Accordingly,
they have continued to place personnel support projects to the fore-
front of this year's program.
During hearings, the Marine Corps advised that a delay has de-
veloped in the delivery of the CH-53 helicopter operational flight
trainer associated with the Flight Simulator Building project for the
Marine Corps Air Station, Santa Ana, California. On the basis of this
delay, the Flight Simulator Building project in the amount of $704,000
was dropped in the authorization act. The Marine Corps stated that
the information on the delay had not been received in time to submit
a change to their program. If time had been available, they would
have requested that the Bachelor Enlisted Quarters project at the
Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii be increased by 72
spaces for E2-E4 personnel and $704,000. The addition of 72 spaces
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
53
for the quarters project at the Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe
Bay is recommended, since the Committee understands that even with
this addition there will be a 3,000 men deficiency at the station.
The remaining portion of the Marine Corps projects will provide :
$5,857,000 for aviation training support and operational facilities;
$5,619,000 for aviation and ground equipment maintenance facilities;
and $4,799,000 for existing utility system improvements.
The Marine Corps projects that were added, denied or reduced by
the House and the Committee's recommendations are shown in the
following table :
Budget House Senate
request action action
Marine Corps Air Station, New River, N.C.: Ground support equipment
shop and shed ---------------------------------------- - -------- $1,085 (') -$1,085
Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii ----------------------- r 5,286 (+$124) (+124)
r No change.
a 72 spaces added by authorization act at $704,000. This amount reduced by $580,000 for unit cost adjustment resulting
in a net increase of $124,000. (Non add included in $819,310,000 total).
Note: The committee denied the low pricrity ground support equipment shop and shed project at the Marine Corps
Air Station, New River, N.C.
The Committee recommends approval of $166,967,000 for TRI-
DENT facilities at various Naval installations.
The first submarine to be supported at the TRIDENT support site
is under construction and the contract has been executed for construc-
tion of the second and third TRIDENT submarines. The contract de-
livery date for the lead submarine is April 1979. However, the con-
tractor is working toward meeting an earliest practicable delivery date
of December 1977.
A change in the ship building program has occurred which stretches
out submarine procurement per year from 1-2-2-2-2-1 to 1-2-1-2-1-
2-1. The Navy stated a review of facilities construction had been made
in view of this stretchout. This review confirms the shipbuilding rate
change does not warrant changes in the fiscal year 1976 Military Con-
struction Program.
In addition to the facilities construction authorized, $7 million was
approved (within the $186,967,000), to assist communities in the TRI-
DENT Support Site, Bangor, Washington area in accordance with
Section 608 of the fiscal. year 1975 authorization act. Under Section
608, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to assist communities lo-
cated near the support site in meeting the costs of providing increased
municipal services and facilities to the residents of such communities.
The reduction of this project by the House and this Committee's
recommendation is shown in the following table :
Budget House Senate
request action action
Trident support site-Trident facilities------------------------------- $186, 967 -$70,000 -$20,000
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/254 CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
The House reduced the TRIDENT facilities project by $70 million
because it felt the drydock construction could be deferred to next
year's program. The House approved the purchase of long-lead time
items for the drydock utilizing available TRIDENT funds. Under a
phased construction plan, construction may start in September 1976.
The Navy advises that a minimum of $30 million is required for the
initiation of the phased construction plan for the drydock. Based on
this statement from the Navy it would appear reasonable to defer $40
million until the fiscal year 1977 MILCON Program. The result of
this action would probably be the deferral of some TRIDENT con-
struction in fiscal year 1977 to fiscal year 1978, and some fiscal year
1978 to fiscal year 1979 under the budget constraints that exist for
military construction. This could result in the delay of some construc-
tion that will have an impact on the initial operational capability date
for the submarine. Of the $2.0 billion budget request for the TRIDENT
program for fiscal year 1976, it would be an error if a $40 million
reduction in the facilities construction were to result in the delay of
the initial operational capability date of this weapon system. No sav-
ings would result in the deferral, only a ripple effect impact on future
military construction programs. Therefore, the Committee recom-
mends reducing the funding by only $20,000,000.
(Inside the United States)
The Committee recommends approval of $47,670,000 for two proj-
ects for Pollution Abatement located inside the United States.
For air pollution abatement, the Committee recommends approval
of $2,843,000 at four installations. The facilities will improve air emis-
sions by constructing a new regional solid waste facility, a missile
propulsion unit reclamation facility, a vapor collection and recovery
system and an ammunition disposal facility.
For water pollution abatement, $44,827,000 is recommended for 31
water pollution abatement facilities at 27 Naval and Marine Corps
installations. The significant items were the ship wastewater col-
lection facilities to provide shore facilities for collection of ship
generated wastes; 13 collection/sewage treatment industrial waste
and sanitary facilities will improve the level of treatment to a degree
that enables the effluent to meet all water quality requirements, and the
demilitarization facility provides the fourth phase of a complex which
will serve as the major West Coast disposal facility. The disposal
facility will conform to all environmental quality standards.
The items denied in the Pollution Abatement project by the House
and this Committee's recommendations are shown in the following
table :
Budget House Senate
Installation project request action action
Air pollution abatement:
Naval Supply Center, Norfolk, Va., vapor collection and recovery 7419 -$419 -$419
system------------------------------------------
Naval Underwater Systems Center, San Diego, Calif., sanitary
treatment improvements -------------------------- ---------- 173 -173 (1)
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144R001.100180001-3
55
The vapor collection and recovery system item is no longer required
to meet applicable Virginia laws.
The sanitary treatment improvements item is required to meet Cal-
ifornia standards, therefore the Committee restored this item at the
Naval Underwater Systems Center, San Diego, California.
The Navy advises that a comprehensive review has been made on
the status of the fiscal year 1973 pollution abatement program, Inside
the United States, and that this review confirms that it is not pos-
sible to proceed with a facility at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard
until the current ceiling of $55,016,000 set by the appropriations
committees is lifted. In fiscal year 1973, the. House and Senate Appro-
priations Committees by Conference Report limited funding of the
water pollution abatement; Inside the United States project to $50,-
016,000, as compared to an authorized amount of $55,016,000. In fis-
cal year 1975, the appropriations committees added $6,000,000 (for
funding adjustments of prior year deficiencies) of which the Navy
applied $5,000,000 to the water and $1,00,000 to the air pollution abate-
ment projects. The Navy had requested a greater amount to enable
them to use the cost variations provisions of the air and water pollution
abatement projects, but when the committees denied these additional
monies, the Navy considered that a ceiling existed for both the air and
water pollution abatement projects of $25,194,000 and $55,016,000,
respectively.
The office of Economic Adjustment has requested that the Navy
proceed with certain pollution abatement items at the Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, California, in order to enhance leas-
ing opportunities at this shipyard. The shipyard is to be maintained
in a reserve status as a result of the shore establishment realinement.
The leasing of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard should save $3,-
000,000 per year being expended for maintenance. Although two
fiscal year 1973 MILCON items are involved, only one is required
in the immediate future; that is the storm/sanitary sewer separation
item. In view of the merits of the request for the item at the Hunters
Point Naval Shipyard, and the need to complete the other pollution
abatement items to avoid legal action for not meeting appropriate state
and local regulations, the Committee recommends lifting the ceilings
imposed on the fiscal year 1973 water and air pollution abatement
projects. This action will allow use of the full authorization, includ-
ing the cost variations provisions thereof.
As funds for utilization of the cost variations provision historically
are obtained from savings on other construction projects, no addi-
tional funds are provided.
ENERGY CONSERVATION
The Committee recommends $25,734,000 for energy conservation fa-
cilities at various Naval and Marine Corps installations.
Some of the improvements that will be provided under the energy
convervation project are outdoor/indoor ambient heating controls,
utility alarm/control system items, steam generation/distribution
system improvements, boiler plant controls, heating, ventilation, air-
conditioning improvements and temperature control systems.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
56
The recommendations for Energy Conservation projects by this
Committee are shown in the following table :
Budget
request
House
action
Senate
action
Naval Air Station, Memphis, Tenn., Modification to steam and condensate
966
$2
S
-$2
lines----------------------------------------------------------
,
106
O
,906
Naval Air Station, North Island, Calif., Boiler plant controls ------------
Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-3,094
I No change.
Full support is given to the objectives of the energy conservation
program. However, the Committee believes the energy conservation
program must also take a proportionate share of the program reduc-
tions.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY
This project will provide improvements to physical security of
two installations. The amount requested of $6,580,000 is recommended
for approval.
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
TENTH NAVAL DISTRICT
For the Tenth Naval District, the Committee recommends a single
air surveillance radar project in the amount of $2,128,000.
This project supports the replacement of the obsolete rotating radar
with a phased array radar, which will provide major improvements in
the detection, tracking and data collection capability.
ATLANTIC OCEAN AREA
In the Atlantic Ocean Area, the Committee recommends $78,000 for
one project at one Naval installation. The project for fuel storage
tanks at the Naval Air Station, Bermuda, will permit the purchase of
three leased fuel storage tanks at considerable savings over the cost of
building new ones.
The recommendations in this district by this Committee are shown
in the following table :
IN thousands of dollars]
Budget House Senate
request action action
Naval Air Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: Bachelor enlisted quarters
modernization------------------ $3,264 (1) -$3,264
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: Telephone system________ _____ 450 (1) -450
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20,CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
In the European area, the three projects requested in the amount
of $3,732,000 were not authorized.
The Committee recommends approval of the $13,800,000 requested
for the Naval Support Activity, Diego Garcia. See comments provided
earlier in this report, page 21..
In the Pacific Ocean area, the House approved $1,200,000 for one
project at the Naval Communication Station, Finegayan, Guam. This
satellite communications terminal addition project will expand an
existing building to permit the installation of a high capacity satellite
communications terminal and a broadcast terminal. The Committee
concurs in this action.
he one project requested for Okinawa ($697,000) and the five
projects requested for the Philippines ($14,380,000) were not au-
thorized.
The Committee recommends $250,000 for a single item that will ex-
tend the sewer outfall lines located at the Naval Station, Roosevelt
Roads, Puerto Rico.
This item will eliminate periodic improper discharges by extending
the sewer outfall line beyond the low tidal area.
The Armed Services Committees denied the two projects in the
amount of $1,100,000 requested for Various Atlantic and Pacific
Installations.
These projects were requested to provide facilities for training flight
crews in Directional Sonobuoy Systems used in the P-3 aircraft weap-
ons system. The construction of the training facilities was denied
because a decision had not been reached on the installations where the
trainers would be located.
A total of $34.8 million in fiscal year 1976 a propriations has been
requested for the construction of Naval and Marine Corps Reserve
facilities. Included in this amount is the entire $13.9 million required
to construct an Armed Forces Reserve Center on the Bolling/Ana-
costia site in Washington, D.C. A substantial portion of this project
is for the D.C. Army National Guard. Total funding for the project
is provided in the appropriation of the Naval Reserve as host service
for simplicity of management. In addition, $1.6 million is for plan-
ning, design and minor construction requirements to make the total
appropriation for the Naval Reserve Program $36.4 million.
The Committee recommends approval of this program.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
58
The appropriations will provide two Naval Air Reserve operational
facilities, one personnel support facility, and eight reserve centers in
addition to that at Bolling/Anacostia. Four energy conservation proj-
ects and four pollution abatement projects will also be provided.
The Department of the Navy advises that the backlog of Naval
Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction deficiencies is now
in excess of $400 million. This represents a substantial increase in the
past year, reflecting heavy inflation in construction costs and revisions
to correct understatments of the deficiencies in prior years. No sig-
nificant decrease in this backlog is to be expected at current levels of
appropriations.
The obligations for fiscal years 1973 through 1975 Military Con-
struction, Naval Reserve program to 30 June 1975 and the projected
obligations for 30 September and 30 December 1976 follow :
Actual Estimated Estimated
Actual percent Estimated percent Estimated percent
Appro- obligations obligations obligations obligations obligations obligations
Fiscal year t ns lune1975 Jun 1975 Sept 19 30, Sept 1975 Dec. 1975 Dec. 19 30,
1973________ $20.5 $20.1 98.1 $20.4 99.5 $20.5 100.0
1974 -------- 22.9 16.2 70.7 16.8 73.4 22.0 96.1
1975 -------- 22.1 16.3 73.8 17.6 79.6 21.0 95.0
The House denied two projects for the Naval and Marine Corps
Reserve Center, Liverpool, New York, because of a concern over the
regionalization plan which would close local reserve centers in favor
of large regional centers. These projects are a Reserve Training
Building ($1,385,000) and a Vehicle Maintenance Facility ($180,000).
The Committee, following a review of the testimony and the appeal
submitted by the Department of Defense, concurs with the stated need
for these two facilities, and recommends the amount of $36,400,000 for
new (obligational) authority for the Naval Reserve program.
NAVY
SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION ACTIONS
[A summary of actions taken on the program originally submittedby the Navy is tabulated below by project]
[In thousands of dollars]
Naval Submarine Base, New London, Conn____________ Bachelor enlisted quarters ----- . ______________
1 -$367
Naval Underwater Systems Center, New London, Conn_ _ Land acquisition-Dresden -------------------
2-88
Naval District Headquarters Washington, D.C __ Naval historical center_______________________
-1,304
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, University__________________________________
2-7,400
Bethesda, Md.
Fleet Combat Direction Systems Training Center, Dam Bachelor enlisted quarters---- --------------------
1-393
Neck, Va.
Naval Station, Mayport, Fla--------------------------- Bachelor enlisted quarters with mess----------
1-205
Naval Training Equipment Center, Orlando, Fla________ Applied research laboratoryaddilias-----------
-185
Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Fla___________________ Instrument trainer facility______--------------
+500
Naval Station, Charleston, S.C------------------------ Bainbridge Ave. extension ------- ------------
+2,100
Naval Support Activity, New Orleans, La_______________ Bachelor enlisted quarters --------------------
1-183
Naval Air Station, Miramar, Calif ----------- _--------------- do-------------------------------------
1-312
Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, Equipment training facilities__________________
-1
920
Calit.
Naval Training Center, San Diego, Calif---------------- Recruit processing facility_____________________
,
-5,455
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, N.C____------------ Bachelor enlisted quarters (French Creek).-___
1 -911
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, Calif------------- Bachelor enlisted quarters (Cha ppo)__________-
1 -226
Bachelor enlisted quarters (Del Aar)___-____-__
1 -126
Bachelor enlisted quarters (San Mateo) --------
1 -126
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
59
NAVY-Continued
SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION ACTIONS-Continued
[A summary of actions taken on the program originally submitted by the Navy is tabulated below by project[-Can.
Amount
(thousands)
Marine Corps Air Station, Santa Ana, Calif------------- Flight simulator building _._----------- _------ -1704
Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe ay, Hawaii---Bachelor enlisted quarters____________________ a +124
Classified location___________________________________ Consolidate communication facility ------------ -1, 527
Naval Station, Rota, Spain ___________________________ Air passenger terminal expansion ------------- -422
Do ------------------------------------------ Building addition---------------------------- -1,783
Naval Security Group Activity, Hanza, Okinawa --------- Emeigency power improvements______________ -697
Naval Air Station, Cubi Point, Philippine Islands -------- Aircraft parking apron_______________________ - -1,951
Maintenance hangar------------------------- -4,785
Bachelor enlisted quarters-------------------- -4, 541
Bachelor officer's quarters____________________ -2,839
Naval Air Station, Subic Bay, Philippine Islands ........ Bachelor enlisted quarters-------------------- -1,264
Naval air station, various locations____________________ Operational trainer building-Atlantic ----- _.... -500
Do --------------------------------------------- Operational trainer building-Pacific ----------- -600
Amendments:
Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Kittery Maine __----__ Additional crane rail system------------------ +2,800
Omega Navaigation Station, Haiku, dahu, Hawaii. Transmitter facility-------------------------- +600
Total----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +3,400
Grand total------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 -34,690
I Unit cost reduction $39.50 per square foot to $35 per square foot.
2 Reduction.
Added 72 spaces and $704,000-bachelor enlisted quarters unit cost reduction reduces by $580,000-net change
plus $124,000.
Appropriation request modified to reflect authorization actions ($854,000,000 minus $34,690,000 equals $819,310,000)
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE
The Committee recommends approval of a total of $634,700,000 and
$16,000,000 for military construction for fiscal year 1976 and the
Budget Transition Period, respectively. Of these totals, $81,000,000 and
$2,000,000 are for the Reserve Forces. The Committee allowance repre-
sents a reduction of $149,900,000 in the budget: estimate of $784,000,000
for fiscal year 1976 and is $126,761,000 more than the appropriation
for fiscal year 1975. The Committee recommends the budget estimate
of $16,000,000 as submitted for the Budget Transition Period. A de-.
tailed tabulation by installations and States is outlined later in this
report. Air Force family housing is not included in the above figures
and is presented in a subsequent portion of this report. A tabulation
of the Committee recommendations by major Air Force command and
special programs follows :
DOD House Senate Conference
request action action report
INSIDE UNITED STATES
_____________________ $11,107
e Defense Command
$10,697
$10,697 --------------
-
117
40
____
Aerospac
Air Force Logistics Command_________________________ 42, 084
293
32,782
27,093
-------------
,
27,093 --------------
Air Force Systems Command______________________181,8 27
297
179
176,630 --------------
Air Training Command____________________________
---------------------- 14,801
Air Command
l
k
,
4,465
4,936 --------------
-
995
9
---------
an
as
A
___________________ 10,333
s Command
t
d
3,089
-------------
,
413
5
__________
er
quar
Hea
5,413
--------------
,
Military Airlift Command_____________________________
Pacific Air Force----------------------------------- 5 610
5,610
13,226
5,610 --------------
11,266 --------------
Tactical Air Co manda------------------------------ 18,129
16,104
15,440 --------------
Various locations:
$600
$600
$600 --------------
Air pollution abatement__________________________
__________________ 10,098
tion abatement
ll
t
10,098
10,098 --------------
909
7
_____
u
er po
Wa
_____________ 098
ons security
ea
l
7,909
--------------
,
187
2
_____
p
ear w
Nuc
Satellite communications facilities__________2,187
2,187
952
43
--------------
,
43,952 --------------
Energy conservation _______________-_____-------
346
15
,
866
9
9,866 ______________
Command , control and communications--------_-__
Air Installation compatible use zones--------------
,
0
,
10,000
10,000 --------------
__________________
ide United States
l I
T
411,915
382,388
____
ns
ota
OUTSIDE UNITED STATES
182
2
0
0 --------------
,
Aerospace Defense Command_________________________
3
492
1
0
,
Pacific Air Forces ----------------------------------
93,
93
U.S. Air Force, Europe------------------------------
981
981
981 -------------
Security Service -------------------------------------
Variouslocatlons:
524
3
666
2
2,666 --------------
Special facilities__________________
,
591
5
,
591
5
5,591 --------------
Nuclear weapons security_____ ___________________
-------------
nications facilities
,
1,795
,
1,795
1,795 ------ ________
----
Satellite commu
Totaloutside United States_____________________
237,435
104,641
104,641 ------------
GENERAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Minorconstruction----------------------------------
,0
24 30,000
000
24,000 -__-___-------
--------------
000
30
Planning and design---------------------------------
30
250
, 250
,
250
3,
Access roads and minor land _________________________
Totalgeneralauthorization_____________________
Budget authority------------------------------
703,600
541,279
553,700 _--------._---
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :6qIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND (INSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The Committee is in agreement with House action to approve ap-
propriations for 2 projects at Tyndall AFB in the amount of
$10,697,000.
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND
Of the original appropriation request for this command of $42,084,-
000 three projects are recommended for deletion and one reduced in the
authorization review. These are : deletion of the Fire Protection Logis-
tics Storage at Kelly AFB, $1,169,000; the Squardon Flight Opera-
tions, $1,872,000 and the Academic Classrooms, $2,118,000 at Tinker
AFB; and reduction of the Kelly AFB Fuel Oil Storage by $247,000
from $995,000 to $748,000. The House has further recommended that
two projects in the amount of $3,896,000 not be funded. The Committee
agrees with deletion of the Kelly AFB Aircraft Hydrant Refueling
System, $1,696,000 but considers the Wright-Patterson AFB Systems
Management Facility, $2,200,000 to be a current and valid requirement.
Additionally, the Committee finds that the Wright-Patterson AFB
Logistics Management Facility, $5,135,000 authoribed in the fiscal
year 1975 program should be funded at this time. With these changes,
the command appropriation program will consist of 20 projects in the
amount of $40,117,000.
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
The original Air Force program for this command was for 15 proj-
ects in the acount of $26,293,000 at 4 locations. One item, an Electro-
magnetic Compatibility Analysis Center at Fort George G. Meade in
the amount of $7,200,000 was lost in authorization. The House added
$8,000,000 against the Natural Disaster Authority for repair and res-
toration of damage caused by Hurricane Eloise on 23 September 1975
at Eglin AFB and Tyndall. AFB, Florida. The Committee concurs
in this addition. As a result, $27,093,000 are recommended for appro-
priation for 74 projects at 3 locations.
AIR TRAINING COMMAND
When submitted by the Air Force, the appropriation request for 8
bases in this command was $181,827,000 for 15 projects. In the author-
ization review, the addition of a project for a Fire Station at Craig
AFB increased the program to $182,246,000 for 16 projects at 9 bases.
The Committee recommends deletion of the Webb AFB Officers
Quarters, $3,937,000. Authorization action reduced funding against
3 bachelor housing facilities by a total of $1,679,000 at 3 locations.
The Committee, therefore, recommends approval of a net command
program of $176,630,000 at 9 bases.
ALASKAN AIR COMMAND
The budget request was for 5 projects at 5 locations costing $14,-
801,000. The Committee concurs in the House deletion of the Galena
Airport Dormitories but disagrees with the House deletion of the Eiel-
son AFB Utilities, $471,000 which provides a sorely needed loop system
through a utilidor. These revisions, along with authorization reduction
of $362,000 on the King Salmon Airport Dormitories results in a
program of $4,936,000 for 4 projects at 4 locations.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
62
HEADQUARTERS COMMAND
The appropriation program for this command consisted of 3 projects
at 2 locations for $10,333,000. Authorization review reduced the
Andrews AFB Airmen Dormitories by $338,000. The House denied the
Airmen Dormitories and Utilities at Andrews AFB, $6,906,000. The
Committee recognizes these two projects as current and valid for ac-
complishment at this time. The resulting program for this command is
$9,995,000.
MILITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND
The Air Force requested appropriation for 6 projects at 4 locations
for this command in the amount of $5,413,000. The Committee recom-
mends approval of this request.
PACIFIC AIR FORCES (INSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The Air Force requested appropriation of $5,610,000 against the
fiscal year 1975 Authorization at Hickam AFB Aircraft Operational
Apron, in the same amount. The Committee concurs in House approval
of this item.
STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND
The appropriation request for this command was for $13,226,000.
This would provide 12 projects at 10 locations. This Committee recom-
mends denial of two projects; Carswell AFB Officers Open Mess, $1,-
992,000 and Kincheloe AFB Aircraft Corrosion Control Facility, $670,-
000. However, the Committee adds $702,000 for the Offutt AFB Li-
brary against the fiscal year 1975 Authorization in that amount. The
resulting Strategic Air Command program is $11,266,000 for 11 proj-
ects at 8 locations.
TACTICAL AIR COMMAND
The appropriation request of $18,129,000 for this command was in
support of 12 projects at 7 locations. One item, a Flight Simulator Fa-
cility at Mountain Home AFB, $480,000 was denied in authorizations.
Similarly, authorizations reduced the Mountain Home AFB Airmen
Dormitories by $209,000. The House denied the Langley AFB Am-
munitions Storage Facility, $1,336,000 which this Committee finds to
be required, now, in support of a newly assigned weapons system.
However, this Committee has determined that the George AFB Con-
solidatedBase Personnel Office, $2,000,000 is of insufficient priority to
warrant accomplishment at this time. The resulting program is for 10
projects at 7 locations in the amount of $15,440,000.
AIR POLLUTION ABATEMENT (INSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The Air Force appropriation request for Air Pollution Abatement
at various locations inside the United States was $600,000. This Com-
mittee concurs with House action to approve the program.
WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT
The appropriation request of $10,098,000 is recommended for ap-
proval as submitted.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
63
NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY (INSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The Air Force requested $7,909,000 to continue the pro am for
improvement of security at Nuclear Storage Sites. This Committee
concurs in House approval of this time.
This single item request, $2,187,000 for 3 locations, is recommended
for approval as submitted.
Of the $46,952,000 requested, $3,000,000 were denied in authoriza-
tion review. The remaining $43,952,000 is recommended for approval.
SPECIAL FACILITIES (INSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The authorization review denied the Clouderoft AFS Spacetrack
Observation Facility, $1,000,000 and Various, Joint Surveillance Sys-
tem, $4,480,000. This Committee concurs in House position to retain
the remaining $9,866,000.
Authorization extended authority from fiscal years 1973 and 1974
in the amount of $30,000,000. The house provided $10,000,000 in ap-
propriations against this authorization. This Committee concurs in
that action.
AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND (OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The budget request for one item, Sondestrom AF, Greenland Elec-
tric Power Plant, $2,182,000 was denied in authorizations.
PACIFIC AIR FORCES (OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The single item requested, an Airmen Dormitory at Clark AB,
$3,492,000, was denied in authorizations.
U.S. AIR FORCE, EUROPE
The appropriation request for Europe was $219,870,000. The
authorization review reduced the request for Aircraft Protective
Shelters by $122,262,000 from $175,000,000 to $52,738,000 and the
Various Locations Munitions Storage Facilities by $4,000,000 from
$26,000,000 to $22,000,000. The remaining program of $93,608,000 was
approved by the House and is concurred in by this Committee.
The appropriation request for one facility, Chicksands AFS Chapel
Center, $981,000 is recommended for approval.
SPECIAL. FACILITIES (OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
Authorizations denied one of the three items requested, Technical
Control Facility Expansion, $858,000. The remaining $2,666,000 has
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
64
been approved by the House and this Committer; recommends its
approval.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY (OUTSIDE TIlE UNITED STATES)
The $5,591,000 requested in appropriations is recommended for
approval.
SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES (OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES)
The appropriation request of $1,795,000 is recommended for ap-
proval.
GENERAL APPROPRIATION
The Committee recommends adding $3,000,000 in recognition of an
urgent need for access road construction at Keesler, Vandenberg, Ells-
worth, MacDill, Robins Air Force Bases and at other locations. This
brings the total for general support programs to $57,250,000.
During the authorization review, the Department of Defense's
request for increase on statutory unit square footage cost limitation
for bachelor housing facilities was denied. This resulted in a $3,930,000
reduction in the budget request.
Amount
(thousands)
Tyndall AFB Fla------------------------------------ - Airmen dormitories____------------------ -458
Laughlin AFB, Tex---------------------------- Officers quarters_-------_---------------
Lowry AFB, Colo-------------------------------------- Airmen dormitories___--___-_______------ -722 -499
Webb AFB, Tax--------------------------------------- Officers quarters__--_---------------_---_-_ -932
Galena Airport, Alaska--------------------------------- Airmen dormitories._____________._-362
King Salmon Airport, Alaska-------------------------------do- -338
Andrews AFB, Md-----------------------------------------do--------------------------------- -209
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho ------- -------------------------- d0---------------------------------
------------- 3,930
Total
The Armed Services Committees also granted deficiency authoriza-
tions as indicated below. These are to be financed from unobligated
balances available to the Air Force from prior year appropriations :
Fiscal year
Base
Amount
(thousands)
Public Law:
1971
Tex --------------------
Laughlin AFB
+E65
91-511
---------------------
,
x
T
F
+
--
91-511-------------------------------
1971
e
Reese A
B,
-------------------- ---
Tex
bb b AFB
W
+
91-511
-------------------------
1971
e
.
C
l
467
-----
91-145
--------------
1972
o
Lowry AFB
o--------------------
F
+294
-----------------
-------
545
92
-
-
-----------
1973
B Calif--------------------
Edwards A
h
-
----------
-
- ------------------------
166
93
-
1974
, Mich-------- _______----
Kincheloe AF
-i 1 482
----
-
93-166
-----------------
1974
Germany
Z
+900
--------------
93-166-------------------------------
1974
1975
one ---------------
Howard AFB Canal
se AFB
R
------------
fex
93-552-------------------------------
2
-
1975
ee
,
-----------
Webb AFB, Tex-----------------------
+897
93-55
------------------------------
056
5
Total----------------
------ -------------------
,
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
The Air National Guard fiscal year 1976 Military Construction
Appropriation request of $63.0 million reflects Air Force recognition
of the requirement for expanded sums to support the increasing need
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :C5IA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
for adequate Air National Guard facilities generated by the acceler-
ated transfer of modern weapons systems into the Air National Guard
in view of the total force policy which places increased emphasis on
reliance on the Reserve Forces in support of national defense.
The fiscal year 1976 appropriation will enable the Air National
Guard to construct 107 essential operational, maintenance and train-
ing facilities in 37 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In
addition, other vital aircraft arresting systems and power check pads
at various locations will be provided for. The appropriation request
also provides $1.0 million for energy conservation projects, $4.3 mil=
lion for planning, and $3.6 million for essential minor construction
requirements. The appropriation request for the Fiscal Year transition
period of July 1, 1976 thru September 30, 1976 provides $500,000 for
planning and $500,000 for essential minor construction.
In order to meet the requirement for adequate Reserve facilities to
support the changing missions of its Reserve components, a total of
$18.0 million has been requested for the Fiscal Year 1976 Military
Construction Program; $16.0 million for construction; $500,000 for
minor construction, and $1.0 million for design. For the three month
transition period, an additional $500,000 was requested for planning
and design, and $500,000 for minor construction.
The fiscal year 1976 Military Construction Program will, like
previous programs, emphasize construction and modernization of air-
craft maintenance, operations, and training facilities. The appropria-
tions will provide, in part, three operational training facilities, a
primary heating plant, various airfield lighting projects, various main-
tenance facilities, and has earmarked $1.0 million for energy
conservation.
AIR FORCE-SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION ACTIONS
Amount
(thousands)
Tyndall AFB Fla------------------------- ..____________ Airmen dormitories ----------------------
-$410
Kelly AFB, Vex. -------------------------------------- Fire protection__________________________
-1,167
Fuel oil storage_________________________
-242
Tinker AFB, Okla_____________________________________ Squadron operations facility______________
-1,878
Academic classroom_____________________
-2,110
Fort Meade, Md---------------------------------------- Electromagnetic compatibility, analysis
-7,209
center.
Craig AFB, Ala---------------------------------------- Fire station_____________________________
+419
Laughlin AFB, Tex_ ---------------------------------- Officers quarters________________________
-458
Lowry AFB, Colo --------------------------------------- Airmen dormitories ----------------------
-722
Webb AFB, Tex-------------------- ______.._._______-__ Officers quarters ------------------------
-499
Galena Apt, Ala_______________________________________ Airmen dormitories______________________
-932
King Salmon Apt, Ala --------------------------------------- do--------------------------------
-362
Andrews AFB, Md ------------------------.?--------------- do---------------------------------
-338
Mount Home AFB, Idaho_______________________________ Flight simulator facility___________________
-480
Airmen dormitories______________________
-209
Various______________________________________________ Energy conservation ---------------------
-3,000
Cloudcroft Anx, N. Max --------------------------------- Spacetrack facility_______________________
-1,000
Various _________________Surveillance system______________________
-4,480
,
Sondrestrom, Greenland__Electric plant
__
_______________________
-2
182
:
_
Clark AFB, P.l____________________________.____________ Airmen dormitories______________________
-3,492
Various, Europe_______________________________________ Airfield protective facilities ---------------
-122,262
Munitions storage facilities_______________
-4,000
Various______________________________________________ Technical control expansion ---------------
-858
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DEFENSE AGENCIES
For the Department of Defense Agencies, the Committee recom-
mends a fiscal year 1976 appropriation of $39,300,000. This is $102,-
200,000 below the budget estimate of $141,500,000 and $20,000,000
above the House allowance of $19,300,000.
The appropriation breakdown is as follows : Defense Mapping
Agency, $195,000; Defense Supply Agency, $8,391,000; National Se-
curity Agency, $3,012,000; and the Defense Nuclear Agency, $24,033,-
000. Of the $8,391,000 approved for the Defense Supply Agency, $2,-
831,000 is to be financed from savings available from prior years, due
principally to cancellation of plans to relocate the Defense Fuel Supply
Center from Cameron Station in Alexandria to Richmond, Virginia.
For general support programs, the Committee recommends approval
of $6,500,000 which includes $2,000,000 for minor construction and
$4,500,000 for planning and design.
The major reductions against this year's request result principally
from actions of the Committees on Armed Services which denied
authorization for appropriations of $86,100,000 for a new Defense
Intelligence Agency headquarters facility, and $10,000,000 of the $20,-
000,000 requested for the Office of Secretary of Defense Emergency
Fund.
The Committee recommends denial of $20,000,000 of funds requested
for the Secretary's Emergency Fund. The Committee considers the
$34,177,000 unobligated balance in this account as of July 1, 1975 ample
to meet needs for fiscal year 1976 and the Transition period, since the
Defense Department programs and justifies this fund on the basis of an
estimated annual requirement of $30,000,000. In this same respect, it is
also noted that the fiscal year 1976 Military Construction Authoriza-
tion Bill provides additional annual emergency construction authority
totaling $30,000,000 directly to the services for essentially the same
purposes.
This year's request included $14,100,000 for the first increment of an
estimated $40,000,000 effort to clean up radiological contamination
and debris on Enewetak Atoll to permit eventual resettlement there
of peoples displaced when the United States Government utilized the
atoll to conduct nuclear weapons testing programs. The Committees
on Armed Services, as a conference issue, agreed to authorize $20,-
000,000 as a target for the total cleanup effort, charging the Depart-
ment of Defense to minimize the total cost through the use of Army
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
engineers and by limiting the scope of the cleanup as much as possible
within the constraints of radiation exposure as set out by the appro-
priate Federal agency.
This Committee strongly supports this requirement and advocates
full funding of the $20,000,000 authorized. The Committee is fully
mindful of its obligation to the United States taxpayer, but it is also
mindful of the obligation of this country to indemnify properly for the
loss sustained by the Enewetak people which, simply, is to restore
their homeland to a habitable condition. In reconstruction of events
since 1947, it seems clear that these were not sophisticated legal trans-
actions, in the business sense of the term, in which these people con-
sciously and irrevocably traded away their territorial rights for the
considerations offered in return. This is reinforced by the testimony of
the Chiefs of these people who emphatically declare Enewetak to be
their rightful home. The people, including the younger, earnestly share
this conviction.
The Committee fully agrees that the cost of this effort should be kept
to the absolute minimum, but does not feel that uncertainty as to the
absolute final figure should be an impediment to proceeding with the
cleanup effort. The Defense Nuclear Agency has conducted exhaustive
studies which indicate that the $20,000,000 currently authorized may
well be insufficient. Further, in view of the two to two and one-half
years estimated to be required for the cleanup effort, the Congress will
have ample opportunity to make adjustments when final costs become
more apparent.
Additionally, the Committee is advised that similar parall els exist
with respect to the Island of Kahoolawe in the State of Hawaii and the
Aleutian Islands in the State of Alaska. Kahoolawe has been us ed as a
Naval Bombing Practice area since May of 1941 despite the fact that
it is only eight miles from Maui, the State's second largest island. The
State's growing population and development has continually in-
creased the constant threat to life and property on Maui. Additionally,
the shock and sound disturbances from aircraft and explosives has
been a source of annoyance to island residents. The Navy has main-
tained that the 30 years of surface and air bombardment has eliminated
the possibility of any future safe, domestic use of the island; however,
as demonstrated by the proposed cleanup of Enewetak, such a cleanup
is not unfeasible. The Committee, therefore, directs the Department
of Defense to study the feasibility of restoring Kahoolawe in a manner
such as to permit return of the island to the State for domestic use.
The Committee is also concerned with the failure of the Army to
proceed with the removal of debris and obsolete buildings remaining
as a result of military construction in World War II in the Aleutian
Islands. The responsibility for this hazardous and unsightly debris
remains with the Army, and the Committee, therefore, directs the
Department to immediately undertake an evaluation of this problem
to report back to Congress methods and costs of removal. The Com-
mittee will expect a report to the Congress within a 12-month period.
The Committee recommends approval of $1,000,000 requested for
the three month transition period bridging fiscal years 1976 and 1977.
This includes $500,000 for urgent minor construction and $500,000
for planning and design.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100180001-3
FAMILY HousING
The Committee recommends approval of $1,332,244,000 intotal ob-
ligating authority funds for the fiscal year 1976 military family hous-
ing program. This amount comprises 34 percent of the entire funds
recommended in this report and is $3,007,000 higher than the Defense
budget request for family housing.
To provide maintenance and operation funds for military housing,
a recommendation is made in the amount of $971,434,000 to maintain
and operate an estimated 387,731 units during fiscal year 1976. This
includes $25,000,000 above the Defense budget request, which is ap-
proved in order to reduce the substantial backlog of deferred main-
tenance in family housing. In addition, the Committee recommends
$92,229,000 for leasing of 10,000 domestic and 14,741 foreign family
housing units for assignment as public quarters.
The Committee has recommended a $206,307,000 construction pro-
gram for fiscal year 1976. This provides for the construction of 3,031
new permanent units, which is 413 units less than requested. New con-
struction approved includes 2,100 units at 3 Army installations, 928
units at 5 Navy and Marine Corps bases, and 3 units for DIA to be
financed by excess foreign currency. The Committee recommends
restoral of the 375 new construction housing units at Fort Stewart/
Hunter Army Airfield, which were deleted by the House. The Com-
mittee believes that the Army has thoroughly and satisfactorily stud-
ied the desirability of stationing a full division at this location, and
believes that construction of necessary support facilities is required.
A total of $114,730,000 is recommended for the approved new housing
construction program. Other fiscal year 1976 construction approved
by the Committee includes $120,357,000 for improvements to family
quarters, $5,200,000 for minor construction, and $1,000,000 for
planning.
For debt payment the Committee recommends the $162,965,000 fund-.
ing level requested in the budget for fiscal year 1976. This includes
$107,617,000 for the payment of debt principal amount owed on Cape-
hart, Wherry, and Commodity Credit financed housing. In addition,
$49,840,000 is approved for the payment of interest on mortgage in-
debtedness on Capehart and Wherry housing and for expenses related
to the construction and acquisition of these houses in prior years. The
Committee recommends $4,960,000 for payment to the prior Housing
Administration for premiums on Capehart and Wherry housing mort-
gage insurance and for the payment of premium on insurance provided
by the FHA for mortgages assumed by active military personnel when
purchasing homes. In addition, in fiscal year 1976 an estimated $8,-
462,000 of other resources will be applied to debt payments, including
$548,000 for advance principal payments and $7,924,000 for interest
payments.
The Committee recommends the amount of $310,639,000 to provide
for provision of essential services and debt payment for Defense family
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00l44R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
69
housing during the transition period. This includes $1,900,000 for
minor construction and $40,808,000 for debt payment, for which a new
appropriation of $40,339,000 is approved. Advanced premium pay-
ments of $136,000 and interest payments of $333,000 will be applied to
debt payments from other resources.
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-ARMY
[In thousands of dollars[
Recommended
DOD House Senate Conference
request action action report
INSIDE UNITED STATES
FORSCOM ----------------------------------------- 3305,669
$265,303
$286,434 ______________
TRADOC------------------------------------------- 210,375
173,731
185,472 --------------
Military district Washington -------------------------- _ 2,368
0
0 --------------
U.S. Army material command________________________ 26,286
17,803
21,230 --------------
U.S. Army communications command .................. 7,932
6,432
6,420 -------------
U.S. Army Military Academy------------------------- 5,937
,
3,883
3,883 --------------
Health services command---------------------------- 16
242
16,522
14,022 --------_----
Various locations:
Air pollution abatement .......................... 15,888
2 359
2,647 ______________
Water pollution abatement_____________________69,110
f 021
49,471 ______________
Dining facilities modernization______
16, 547
547
16,547 --------------
Energy conservation_____________________________
33,077
31 ,963
30,429 ______________
Nuclear weapons security______________________
2,652
2,652
2,652 ______________
Total inside United States______________________
712,083
585,216
619,207 ----- -_______
OUTSIDE UNITED STATES
U.S. Army southern command________________________
1,400
1,400
1,400 --------------
USAREUR, Germany_________________________________
44,989
20,599
20,599 ________-_---_
USARF.UR,Italy_____________________________________
5,589
3,589
3,589 ______________
USAREUR,infrastructure_____________________________
80,00D
80,000
70,000 --------------
U.S. Army security agency___________________________
1,971
1,176
1,176 _____.______
U.S. Army Pacific___________________________________
9,976
9,281
9,281 --------------
U.S. Army communications command --- --------------
412
412
412 --------------
Puerto Rico----------------------------------------
2,480
0
0 -------------
Various locations: Nuclear weapons security ---------- -_
34,000
34,000
34,000______________
GENERAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Minor construction__________________________________
20,000
20,000
20,000 ______________
Planning-------------------------------------------
49,000
49,000
49,000 --------------
Totalgeneral authorization --------------- _-----
69,000
69,000
69,OOD-_-___________
Grand total program_________________________
961,900
804,673
828,664 __..__________-
Unobligated balance available to finance fiscal year 1976
program-----------------------------------------
-4,000
-16,336
-15,722 --------------
Budget authority------------------------------
957,900
788,337
812,942 ---- ______.__
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-NAVY
[In thousands of dollars[
DOD
request
House
action
Recommended
Senate
action
Conference
report
INSIDE UNITED STATES
1st Naval District___________________________________ 0
E2,800
$4,800
--------------
3d Naval District____________________________________ $18,997
6,242
18,542
--------------
Naval District, Washington, D.C___--------------- _____ 181,753
172,399
180,106
--------------
5th Naval District___________________________________ 29,347
16,954
24, 571
--------------
6th Naval District___________________________________ 32,799
29,421
34,121
--------------
8th Naval District___________________________________ 26,939
26,756
26,756
--------------
9th Naval District______________________________11,599
11,599
11,599
-----
11th Naval District__________________________________
62,843
53,529
47,090
--------------
12th Naval District__________________________________
3,435
3,435
3,435
--------------
13th Naval District__________________________________
37,247
35,247
37,247
______________
14th Naval District__________________________________
12,947
6,469
16,903
Marine Corps facilities_______________________________
59,001
57,032
55,947
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-NAVY-Continued
On thousands of dollars)
DOD
request
House
action
Recommended
Senate
action
Conference
report
INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued
Various locations:
Trident facilities________________________________
$186,967
$116,967
$166,967
--------------
Air pollution abatement__________________________
3,262
2,843
2,843
--------------
Water pollution abatement_______________________
44,827
44,654
44,827
--------------
Energy conservation_____________________________
28,828
28,828
25,734
--------------
Nuclear weapons security________________________
6,580
6,580
6,580
_____________-
Total inside United States______________________
OUTSIDE UNITED STATES
10th Naval District__________________________________
2,218
2,128
2,128
--------------
Atlantic area ---------------------------------------
3,792
3,792
78
--------------
European area-------------------------------------
3,732
0
0
--------------
Indian Ocean area___________________________________
13,800
13,800
13,800
--------------
Pacific area -----------------------------------------
17,277
1,200
1,200
--------------
Various locations:
Water pollution abatement-----------------------
250
250
250
--------------
Opera tional trainer buildings_____________________
1,100
0
0
--------------
Total outside United States ---------------------
GENERAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Minor construction----------------------------------
21 ,DOO
20,000
20,000
--------------
Planning -------------------------------------------
41'550
50,550
50,550
--------------
Access roads and minor land__________________________
3,000
7,200
7,200
--------------
Total general authorization_____________________
Grand total program___________________________
854,000
730,675
803,274
--------------
Unobligated balance available to finance fiscal year 1976
program-----------------------------------------
0
-1,948
-3,948
--------------
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-AIR FORCE
lIn thousands of dollarsi
DOD
request
House
action
Recommended
Senate Conference
action report
INSIDE UNITED STATES
Aerospace Defense Command-------------------------
$11,107
$10,697
$10,697 --------------
Air Force Logistics Command-------------------------
42,084
32,782
40,117 --------------
Air Force Systems Command-------------------------
26,293
27,093
27,093 --------------
Air Training Command_______________________________
181,827
179,297
176,630 ______________
Alaskan Air Command-------------------------------
14,801
4,465
4,936 --------------
Headquarters Command_____________________________
10 ,333
3,089
9,995 --------------
Military Airlift Command----------------------------
5,413
5,413
5,413______________
Pacific Air Force------------------------------------
5,610
5,610
5,610 --------------
Strategic Air Command------------------------------
13 ,226
13,226
11,266 -------------
Tactical Air Command -------------------------------
18,129
16,104
15,440 -------------
Variouslocations:
Air pollution abatement--------------------------
60D
600
600 --------------
Water pollution abatement_______________________
10,098
10,098
10,098 --------------
Nuclear weapons security________________________
7,909
7,909
7,909 --------------
Satellite communications facilities_________________
2,187
2,187
2,187 --------------
Energy conservation -----------------------------
46,952
43,952
43,952 --------------
Command, control and communications ------------
15,346
9;866
9,866 --------------
Air Installation compatible use zones--------------
0
10,000
10,000 -------------
Total, inside United States_____________________
411,915
382,388
391,809 --------------
OUTSIDE UNITED STATES
Aerospace Defense Command-------------------------
2,182
0
0 --------------
Pacific Air Forces___________________________________
3,492
0
0 --------------
U.S. Air Force, Europe_______________________________
219,810
93,608
93,608---------------
Security service_____________________________________
981
981
981 ----------
Various locations:
Special facilities--------------------------------
3,524
2,666
2,666 --------------
Nuclear weapons security ------------------------
5,591
5,591
5, 591 --------------
Satellite communications facilities_________________
1,795
1,795
1,795 --------------
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
71
FISCAL 1916 APPROPRIATION REQUEST, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-AIR FORCE-Continued
-In thousands of dollarsi
DOD
request
House
action
Recommended
Senate
action
Conference
report
GENERAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Minor construction__________________________________
$24,000
$24,000
$24,000
______________
Planning-------------------------------------------
30,000
30,000
30,000
--------------
Access roads and minor land_________________________
250
250
3,250
--------------
Total, general authorization____________________
54,250
54,250
57,250
--------------
Grand total, program__________________________
703,600
541,279
553,700
--------------
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST, MILITARY CONSTRUC1ION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE-DEFENSE AGENCIES
DOD
request
House
action
Recommended
Senate Conference
action report
INSIDE UNITED STATES
Defense Intelligence Agency--------------------------
$86,100
0
0 ____--______--
Defense Mapping Agency----------------------------
195
$195
$195 -___.---_--_--
Defense Supply Agency______________________________
Includes:
6,823
7,654
7,654 -___--.__-----
Air pollution abatement----------------------
(2,426)
(2,426
(2,426 --_-_-_______.
Water pollution abatement-------------------
(322)
(322
(322 ________--___-
.
Energy conservation_________________________
National Security Agency
(175)
3
012
(175
3
012
(175
_______------.
_____________________________
,
,
3,012 -------------
Total, inside United States_____________________
96,130
10,861
10,861 ---------------
OUTSIDE UNITED STATES
Defense Supply Agency______________________________
737
737
737 -----------
Defense Nuclear Agency_____________________________
18,133
4,033
24,033 --------------
Total, outside United States___________________
81,870
4,770
24,770 --------------
SUPPORT PROGRAMS
OSD emergency construction_________________________
30,000
10,000
10,000 ______________
Planning------:------------------------------------
4,500
4,500
4,500 --------------
Minor construction__________________________________
2,000
2,000
2,000 --------------
Total, general support programs________________
36,500
16,500
16,500 --------------
Grand total, program__________________________
151,500
32,131
52,131 --------------
Unobligated balance available to finance fiscal year
program-----------------------------------------
10,000
-12,831
-12,831 --------------
Budget authority______________________________
141,500
19,300
39,300 --------------
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
[In thousands of dollarsl
DOD
request
House
action
Recommended
Senate
action
Conference
report
Alabama:
Army:
Fort McClellan______________________________
$42,464
$41,090
$38,590
____________--
Redstone Arsenal___________________________
1,571
1,571
1,571
----------
Fort Rucker________________________________
15,084
5,945
15,084
______________
Subtotal_________________________________
59,119
48,606
55,245
---------------
Air Force: Craig AFB, Selma ----------- _----------
0
419
419
---------
Total
59,119
49,025
55,664
-------------
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
72
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued
]In thousands of dollars]
DOD
State/service and Installation request
House
action
Recommended
Senate
action
Conference
report
Alaska:
Army: Fort Richardson___________________________ $3,087
$1,685
$1,685
--------------
Navy: Naval Station, Adak_______________________ 2,945
2,945
2,945
--------------
Air Force:
Elmendorf AFB, Anchorage___________________ 568
568
568
--------------
Eielson AFB, Fairbanks______________________ 471
0
471
--------------
Galena Airport______________________________ 9,503
0
0
-=------------
King Salmon AFS___________________________ 3,620
3,258
3,258
--------------
Various locations____________________________ 639
639
639
--------------
Subtotal_________________________________ 14,801
4,465
4,936
--------------
OSD: DSA: Defense property disposal office,
Elmendorf AFB_______________________________ 403
403
403
--------------
9,498
9,969
--------------
Ar-zona:
Army:
Fort Huachuca______________________________ 7,517
6,017
6,005
--------------
Yuma Proving Ground_______________________ 2,626
2,297
2,297
--------------
N avy: Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma_____________ 1,164
1,164
1,164
______________
Air Force: Luke AFB, Phoenix____________________ 439
439
439
--------------
9,905
-------------
California:
Army:
Letterman Army Hospital_____________________ 0
280
280
--------------
Camp Roberts------------------------------ 415
415
415
--------------
Fort Ord---------------- ------------------ 32 ,890
32,209
32,209
______________
Sierra Army Depot__________________________ 1,033
1,160
1,160
--------------
Navy:
Naval Parachute Test Range, El Centro________ 1, 345
1, 345
1,345
--------------
Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach_______ 8,022
8, 022
4,700
--------------
Naval Air Station, Miramar___________________ 23,018
21,079
17,962
--------------
Naval Air Station, North Island--------------- 15,777
15,777
1 5:777
--------------
Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port
Hueneme-------------------------------- 1,920
0
0
--------------
Naval Electronics Laboratory, San Diego________ 3,795
3, 795
3,745
--------------
Naval Public Works Center, San Diego_________ 3,511
3,511
3,511
--------------
Naval Training Center, San Die5,455
0
0
--------------
Naval Weapons Station, 264
264
264
--------------
Naval Air Station, Moffett Field_______________ 2,400
2,400
2,400
--------------
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey---------- 217
217
217
--------------
Marine Corps Supply Center, Berstow--------- 1,352
1, 352
1,352
--------------
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton__________ 9, 958
9, 480
9,480
--------------
Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro_____________ 2, 000
2, 000
2,000
--------------
Marine Corps Air Station, Santa Ana ----------- 704
0
0
--------------
Marine Corps Base, Twentynine Palms_________ 3,159
3,159
3,159
--------------
Air Force:
Beale AFB, Marysville___________________3, 590
3,590
3,590
--------------
Edwards AFB, Rosamond_____________________ 5,330
5,330
5,330
--------------
George AFB, Victorville---------------------- 3,646
3,646
1,646
--------------
McClellan AFB, Sacramento__________________ 3,461
3,461
3,461
--------------
Vanderberg AFB, Lompoc____________________ 2,696
2,696
2,696
--------------
OSD:
DSA:
Defense Depot, Tracy____________________ 0
637
637
--------------
Defense Fuel Support Point, Norwalk______ 197
197
197
--------------
Defense Property Disposal Office, Monte-
rey,Seaside ------------------------ 635
635
635
--------------
Total--------------------------------
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 7 IA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued
[In thousands of dollars]
DOD
House
Recommended
Senate Conference
request
action
action report
Colorado:
Army: Fort Carson______________________________ $17,932
Air Force: Lowry AFB
D
$10,732
$10,732
,
enver___________________ 9, 884
OSD: DSA: Defense Property Disposal_ Office,
C
9,162
--------- _-__
9,162 __________
olorado Springs____________________________ 440
440
440 --------------
Total 28 256
Connecticut: Navy: Naval Submarine Base, New London__ 1i, 880
20,334
15, 213
20,334 --------------
17, 513
District of Columbia:
Army: Walter Reed Medical Center________________ 15, 270
Headquarters, Naval District of Washington_._._ 1, 704
Naval Research L
b
t
300
0
a
ora
ory___________________ 4,824
4,824
--------------
4,824 --------------
Subtotal-----------------------------6,528
Air Force: Boiling AFB
5,124
4,824 ---
_________________________ 3,089
OSD: DIA: Bollin
/An
ti
3,089
-----
3
089
g
acos
a_____86,100
0
,
_._____
0
Total--------------------- -------- ---- 110,987
F
23,483
20,683
lorida: Army: Eglin AFB, Valpariso______________________ 1,635
511
511 ______
Navy:
Naval Air Station, Cecil Field 4,878 4,878
Naval Air Station
Jacksonville
4,878
4,878_______-__
,
--___3,382
Naval Station
htayport
3,382.
____
2,784 ----------
,
_______________..______ 4,789
Naval Hospital
Orlando
3,584
---
3,294 -------
,
______________________ 2,978
Naval Training Center
Orlando
2,978
-
2,978 -----
,
___________ _
___ 5,588
Naval Training Equipment Center
Orlando
0
--
5,588 _____
-----
,
_
__ 185
Naval Coastal Systems Labor
tor
P
0 ----
y,
a
anama City 1, 924
Naval Air Station, Pensacola4
282
1, 924
----------
1, 924 ___ _ _ _ _ _
-
-
,
Naval Air Station, Whiting 0
4,282
500
4,282
-
500 --------------
Subtotal________
27,007
21,528
26,228
Air Force:
EglinAFB, Valpariso.........................
Tyndall AFB
Sprin
field
8,390
16,390
16,390 _
,
g
_____________________
11, 107
10, 697
_____________
10,697 ._._____
Subtotal____
19,497
27,087
27,087 _-____________
Total-----------------------------------
Rrmy:
48,138
49,126
53,826 -------
Fort Banning_______________________________
Fort Gordon____
47,429
31,393
34,668 ----------
____________________________
Fort Stewart__
6,945
5,610
----
6,945 ______ ------
____________________
41,381
33,044
39,480 -----------
Subtotal Force: Robins AFB, __________________
Warner Robins
95,755
70,047
81,093 --------------
6,517
6,517
6, 517 -------
--
-
----
Total ----
102,272
H
ii
76, 564
87, 610
awa
:
Army: Schofield Ba
k
rrac
s----------------
Nav Naval Station, Pearl Harbor 7,842 7,842
Naval Submarine Base
Pearl H
b
764
11900
7,842
,
ar
or---------- 2,605
Pearl Harbor Naval Shi
d
2,605
____-_________
2605
pyar
_________________
Naval Communication Station, Honolulu
--------
3,,356 ______________
,
Wahiawa--------------------- 2, 500
Marine Corps Air Station
Kaneohe B
-
-------
--
2, 500
21500 -------
,
ay
-
-
. 6,629
Omega Station
Haiku
6,753
------
6,753 -----------
-
,
------------------------ 0
600
--
600 --------------
Subtotal- __________19,576 13,222
Air Force: Hickam AFB
Honolulu
23,656 ----------
,
_______________5, 610 5,610
----
5:610 --------------
Total --------- _
----------?
25
186
-------------
Idaho: Air
Force: Mountain Home AFB, Mountain
Home
,
18,832
31,166
-------------
9,230
8, 541
8, 541 --------------
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/2.y4: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued
11 n thousands of dollars)
DOD
request
Recommended
House Senate Conference
action action report
Illinois:
Navy:
Naval Training Center, Great Lakes____________
510,448
$10,448
$10,448 --------------
1
Public Works Center. Great Lakes_____________
1,151
1,151
1,15
--------------
Subtotal ---------------------------------
11,599
11,599
11,599 --------------
88
Air Force: Scott AFB, Shiloh______________________
1,486
1,488
1,4
--------------
Total ---------------------------------------
13,087
13,087
13,087 --------------
879
Kansas: Army: Fort Riley----------------------------
16,043
14,879
----- ________
14,
Kentucky:
Army:
Fort Campbell______________________________
14,911
12,452
13,680 --------------
898
42
Fort Knox__________________________________
42,898
42,320
,
--------------
Louisiana:
Army: Fort Polk--------------------------------
72,459
64,584
69,621 ______________
Navy:
Naval Personnel Center, New Orleans__________
21,300
21,300
21,300 --------------
856
Naval Support Activity, New Orleans___________
2,039
1,856
1,
--------------
Subtotal ---------------------------------
23,339
23,156
23,156 ---------
Total
--------------- ------------
95,798
87,740
92,777 --------------
-------
Maine: Navy: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery_______
0
2, 800
2,800 --------------
Maryland:
Army:
Aberdeen Proving Ground____________________
9,193
6,000
7,000 --------------
972
Fort Detrick--------------------------------
972
972
--------------
92
Fort George G. Meade________________________
2,892
2,892
--------------
2,8
Subtotal ---------------------------------
13,057
9,864
10,864 ___________
Navy:
0
0
6,828
------------ --
Naval Academy, Annapolis
National Naval Medical edical Center
Bethesda------
100,000
100,000
100,000 --------------
,
Uniformed Services University of Health
Sciences, Bethesda________________________
72,300
64,900
64,900 --------------
Naval Ship Research and Development Center,
550
0
0
Carderock--------------------------------
Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head__________
0
0
1,179 --------------
Subtotal ---------------------------------
172,850
164,900
172,907 --------------
Air Force:
Andrews AFB, Camp Springs_________________
7,244
0
6,906 --------------
0
Fort George G. Meade________________________
7,200
0
--------------
Subtotal--------------------------------
14,444
0
6,906 --------
OSD: NSA: Fort George G
_______________
Meade
3,012
3,012
3,012 --------------
___
.
DMA: DMA Topographic Center, Bethesda,
Maryland--------------------------------
195
195
195 --------------
Subtotal---------------------------------
3,207
3,207
3,207 --------------
Total ------------------------------------
203,558
177,971
193,884 --------------
Mas
sachusetts:
Army:
Research Center__:_______
& Mech
Mtls
Arm
976
976
976 --------------
.
.
y
Defense Support Activity (Fargo Building),
- - 8,000
Boston
8'
00
0
8,000
8,000 --------------
373
-
3
73
Natick Laboratories_______
373
______________
Total-----------------------------------
9,349
Mic
higan:
Air Force:
Kincheloe AFB, Kinross______________________
670
670
0 _________-_---
447
Wurtsmith AFB, Oscado______________________
447
447
_____________-
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20ifIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued
fin thousands of dollars]
DOD
Recommended
e
request
action Conference
ction
INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued
Mississippi s
Air Force:
Columbus AFB, Columbus____________________ $1,453
KeeslerAFB,Biloxi_________
43
140
$1,453
$1,453 _________
_____
________________
,
43,140
43,140_._._____
.____
Total-------------- 44,593
Missouri: Army: Fort Leonard W
d
44,593
44
593
oo
_________________ 14,785
Montana: Air Force: Malmstr
AFB
G
14,785
,
14
785
om
,
reat Falls_______ 622
Nebraska: Air For
Off
622
,
_________-
622
ce:
utt AFB, Omaha_______________ 1,437
1,437
2
139
Nevada:
Navy: Naval Air Station, Fallon 554 554
Air Fo
N
lli
554
,
rce:
e
s AFB, Las Vegas___________990
990
990
Total------------ 1,544
1,544
1,544 _ -------------
New Jersey:
Navy: Naval Weapons Station, Earle_______________ 879
Air Force
M
G
i
F
879
7
:
c
u
re A
B, Wrightstown_____________ 1,740
1,740
1
740
Total_____________________________________2,619
2,619
,
------ __.____
2,619
New Mexico:
Army: White Sands Missile Range_________________ 6,211
3,715
------------
6,142 _______......
Air Force:
Cannon AFB Clovis_______________________1,876
Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque___________.._____. 5,373
1,876
5,373
1,876 ________
5,373 -
------
Subtotal --------------------------------- 7,249
T
7,249
-------
7,249 --------------
otal ----------------------------------- 13,460
10,964
13,391 ---------
Army:U.S.Military Academy____________________ 5,937
Navy: Naval UnderwaterSystem_Center, New London,
Dresden Annex_____________________________ 238
3,883
150
3,883 _____________
150 ------ -------
Air Force:
Griffiss AFB, Rome__________________________ 372
Plattsburgh AFB, Plattsburgh400
372
372
_______
400
400 ___.___
.___
Subtotal--------------------------------- 772
772
772 ----------
Total------------ 6,947
4,805
4,805
North Carolina:
Army: Fort Bragg________________________
------------------------------- 13,534
13,214
13
214
Navy:
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune________14,334
Marine Corps Air Station
Che
P
i
13,423
,
_____________
13,423 ___
,
o
rry
nt_11,426
Marine Corps Air Station
New Ri
11,426
_______
11,426 _
_
,
ver -_______5,493
5,493
__
___
4,408______________
Subtotal____ldsb___oro________ 31,253
Air Force: Seymour-Johnson AFB, Go..__ 612
30,342
612
29,257 _________..___
612 ---------------
Total ------ 45,399
44,168
43, 083 ----
Air Force:
Newark AFS, Newark- 2,117 2,117
Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton8
038
2,117
2,117 -----
______
,
5,838
13,173 ______
.__
Subtotal_______________10,155
OSD: DSA: Defense Electronics Supply Center, Day-
ton ------------------------------------------ 96
7,955
96
15,290 ------------
Total 10,251
8,051
15,386 -------------
Oklahoma:
Army: Fort Sill_________________________________ 16,513
15,772
15,772 --------------
Air Force:
TinkerrAFB, Oklahoma City__________________ 16,169
Vance AFB
Enid
12,179
12,179 ________
,
______________1,270
0
___--_
1,270 ______
Subtotal________________ 18,435
13,175
14,445 ___---------
34,948
28,947
30,217 --------------
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/2076CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued
[In thousands of dollars[
State/service and Installation
DOD
request
Recommended
House Senate Conference
action action report
INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued
Pennsylvania:
Army: Letterkenny Army Depot___________________
C
t
$198
0
0 _____-________
er,
en
OSD: DSA: Defense Personnel Support
Philadelphia----------------------------------
1,400
$1,400
$1,400 --------------
Rhode Island:
Navy: Naval Underwater Systems Center -----------
0
0
2,000 --------------
OSD: DSA: Defense Fuel Support Point, Melville,
Newport------------------------------------
352
352
352 -------------
352
2,352 --------------
South Carolina:
Army: Fort Jackson_____________________________
19,201
14,546
14,546 ______________
Navy:
Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine Training
Center, Charleston________________________
250
250
250 -------
Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston---------
51348
5,348
5,348 ------------
100
2
Naval Station, Charleston____________________
0
2,100
--------------
,
Polaris Missile Facility, Atlantic, Charleston____
195
195
195 ____________
782
2
Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort____________
2,782
2,782
--------------
,
Subtotal ----------------- ---------------
8,575
10,675
10,675 --------------
uta-------------------------------------
Tennessee: OSD: DSA: Defense Depot, Memphis._____
377
377
377 ______________
Texas:
Army:
Aeronautical Depot Maintenance Center --------
1,989
1,711
1,711 ______________
281
Fort Hood----------------------------------
47,947
46,281
46,
__.------ .----
0
Fort Sam Houston---------------------------
870
87D
----- _____----
0
Red River Army Depot_______________________
1,554
0
--------------
_
Lackland AFB, San Antonio__________________
1,029
0
___-
0 ------- __
Subtotal---------------------------------
53,389
48,862
47,992 --------------
Navy: Naval Air Station, Corpus Christ! ------------
3,600
3,600
3,600 ------
Air Force:
Carswell AFB, Fort Worth____________________
1,992
1,992
0 ________--_---
7
Kelly AFB, San Antonio______________________
5,782
2,670
,
2,6
0
596
04
Lackland AFB, San Antonio__________________
104,596
596
104
--------------
,
1
Laughlin AFB, Del Rio_______________________
11,475
11,017
11,017 --------------
Randolph AFB, San Antonio__________________
5,128
5,128
5,128 --------------
Webb AFB, Big Spring_______________________
4,881
4,382
445 --------------
Subtotal ---------------------------------
133,854
129,785
123,856 --------------
Total ------ -----------------------------
190,843
182,247
175,448 __________
Virginia:
Army:
Fort Eustis---------------------------------
633
0
633 --------------
040
1
FortLee-----------------------------------
1,759
1,759
,
-------------
0
Fort Myer----------------------------------
2,368
0
--------------
Subtotal---------------------------------
4,760
1,759
1,673 ----_--_------
Navy:
Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren__--_-
21375
2,375
2,375 --------------
Fleet Combat Direction Systems Training Cen-
Atlantic, Dam Neck____________________
ter
4,776
4,383
0 --------------
2
,
Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet, Norfolk-___
4 246
4246
4,
46 --------------
2
Nava l Station, Norfolk -----------------------
2,289
2,289
89 --------------
2,
293
3
Naval Air Station, Ocean____________________
3,293
3,293
____________--
,
NavalWeapons Station, Yorktown -------------
14,743
2,743
14,743 --------------
Subtotal---------------------------------
31,722
19,329
26,946 --------------
1
336
Air Force: Langley AFB, Hampton_________________
1,336
0
,
--------------
OSD: DSA: Defense General Supply Center, Rich.
mond---------------------------------------
0
194
194 --------------
Total
--------------------------------------
37,818
21,282
30,149 --------------
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
77
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued
[in thousands of dollars[
State/service and Installation
DOD
request
Recommended
House Senate
action action
Conference
report
INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued
Washington:
Army: Fort Lewis-------------------------------
$33,723
$24,461
$31,861
--------------
Navy:
Naval Regional Medical Center, Bremerton-----
29,959
27,959
29,959
-------------
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton------.
3,261
3,261
3,261
--------------
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island_____________
1,082
1,082
1,082
--------------
Subtotal ----------------------------------
34,302
32,302
34,302
_____________-
Air Force:
Fairchild AFB, Spokane______________________
1,000
1,000
1,000
______________
McChord AFB, Tacoma______________________
1,189
1,189
1,189
--------------
Subtotal ---------------------------------
2,189
2,189
2,189
__----- _____
Total ------------------------------------
70,214
58,952
68,352
-------------
Various locations:
Army
Energy Conservation_________________________
33,077
31,963
30,429
---- __________
Dining Facilities_____________________________
16,547
16,547
16,547
______________
Air Pollution Abatement_____________________
15,888
2,359
2,647
--------------
Water Pollution Abatement___________________
69,110
48 021
49,471
__________ ---
Nuclear Weapons Security____________________
2,652
2:652
2,652
___----- ______
Subtotal-------- ------------------------
137,274
101,542
101,746
--------------
Navy: ,
Trident Facilities_____________ _ ____________
179,967
109,967
159,967
--------------
Trident Community ImpactSupport___________
7,000
7,000
7,000
--------------
Air Pollution Abatement---------------------
3,262
2,843
2,843
--------------
Water Pollution Abatement___________________
44,827
44,654
44,827
-------------
Energy Conservation_________________________
28,828
28 ,828
25,734
______________
Nuclear Weapons Security____________________
6, 580
6,580
6,580
--------------
Subtotal ---------------------------------
270,464
199,872
246,951
--------------
Air Force:
Energy Conservation_________________
46,952
43,952
43,952
--------------
Air Pollution Abatement_____________________
600
600
600
--------------
Water Pollution Abatement___________________
10,098
10,098
10,098
______________
SatelliteCommunicationFacilities_____________
2,187
2,187
2,187
--------------
Command Control and Communications-------
15,346
9,866
9,866
--------------
Nuclear )Weapons Security____________________
7,909
7,909
7,909
--------------
Air Installation Compatible UseZones ---------
0
10,000
10,000
--------
Subtotal ------------------_---- --------
83,092
84,612
84,612
OSD:
DSA:
Energy Conservation_____________________
175
175
175
--------------
_____________
_
Air Pollution Abatement
2,426
2,426
2,426
______________
__
_
Water Pollution Abatement_______________
322
322
322
._.......... ._
Subtotal_____________________________
2,923
2,923
2,923
--------------
Total --------------- ----------------
493,753
388,949
436,232 ------ _______
Total inside United States:
9
207
6
Army
---------------------------------
712,083
585,216
,
1
--------------
---------
Navy
-------------------------------------
747,371
631,755
708,068 -------------
-----
Air Force
----------------------------
411,915
382,388
391,809 ------ ________
-----------
OSD-- ----------------------------------------
96,130
10,861
10,861 ______________
Total-----------------------------------------
1,967,499
1,610,220
1,729,945 --------------
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
78
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued
[in thousands of dollars]
DOD
request
House
action
Recommended
Senate Conference
action report
OUTSIDE UNITED STATES
Bermuda: Navy: Naval Air Station, Bermuda____________
Canal Zone:
Army: Fort Sherman
Cuba:
Navy:
..a..., Stau
n
G
t
B
3,264
0 -----------
v
,
uan
anamo
ay---------------
450
---
0 --------------
Total ---------------- 3,714
European area: Navy: Classified location__________ 1,527
3,714
0
0 ------
0
Germany:
Army: Various locations__________________________ 44,989
20,599
20,599 _____-___--__-
Air Force:
Bitburg AB--------------------------------- 1,400
HahnAB
1,400
1,400 ------ __--
--- 3,946
3,946
----
3,946 --------------
Subtotal--------------------------------- 5,346
5,346
5,346 -------------
OSD:
DSA: Property Disposal Office:
Nuremberg----------------500
Seckenheim----------------------------
237
500
237
500
237 ------------
Subtotal ---
737
737
737 --------------
Total________________________________
Greenland: Air Force: Sondrestrom ---------
51,072
182
2 2
26,682
0
26,682 -------
Guam, M.I.: Navy: Naval Communication Station,
,
0 ---
Finegayan--------------- ----
Indian Ocean: Navy: Naval Support Activity, Diego
Garcia-------------------------------------------
Italy: Army: Camp Darby
1, 200
13,8D0
1, 200
13,800
1,200 ------------
13,800 --------------
---
Johnston At
l
5,589
3,589
3,589 ----------
o
i_
Arm
: Vari
I
ti
4,033
4,033
4,033__
y
oCa
ous
oris---
Ma
h
ll Di
t
i
9,976 9,976
9,281
____________
9
281
rs
a
r
s
ct, T.T.P.I.: OSD: DNA: Eniwetok Auxili-
ary Airfield ---------------------------------------
14,100
0
,
______ _.__
20,000 --------------
Okinawa:
Army: Fort Buckner-----------------------------
Nav
: Naval Sec
rit
G
i
412
412
412 __________
y
y
u
roup Act
vity,Hanza
697
0
_---
0
Total----------------------------------------
1,109
412
412
Philippines:
Navy:
Naval Air Station, Cub! Point_________________
14,116
0
0
Naval Station, Subic Bay_____________________
1,264
0
0
Subtotal
Air Force: Clark AB
A
l
15,380
0
0 ---------
,
nge
es______
3,492
0
-----
0 --------------
Total
18,872
0
0
Army: Fort Buchanan____________-,--Roosevelt-
Navy: Atlantic Fleet Weapons Range
2,480
0
0
Roads
-------------------------------------
2,128
2,128
2,128 --------------
Spain Total------------------------------------
4,608
2,128
2,128 --------------
Navy: Naval Station, Rota------------------------
2,205
0
0
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100180001-3
79
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-Continued
(In thousands of dollars]
Recommended
State/service and Installation
DOD
request
House -
action
Senate Conference
action report
OUTSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued
United Kingdom:
Air Force:
RAF Upper Heyford____.-____________________
$13,524
$13,524
$13,524 ____________-_
RAF Chicksanda----------------------------
981
981
981 ______________
Total------------------------------------
14,505
14,505
14,505 _-____________
Various locations:
Army:
USAREUR, Infrastructure_____________________
80,000
80,000
70,OOD ______________
_____________________
Army Security Agency_
1,971
1,176
1,176 ______________
:
Nuclear Weapons Security___________________
34,000
34,000
34,000 ______________
Subtotal_________________________________
115,971
115,176
105,176 ______________
Navy:
0 erational Trainer Buildings_________________
1,100
0
0 __________-___
Water Pollution Abatement___________________
250
250
250 ______________
Air Force:
Airfield Protective Facilities__________________
175,000
52, 738
52,738 ______________
Munition Storage Facilities___________________
26,000
22, 000
22,000 ______________
Special Facilities____________________________
3, 524
2,666
2,666 --------------
Nuclear Weapons Security.
5, 591
5, 591
5,591 --------------
:
Satellite Communication Facilities_____________
1,795
1, 795
1,795 --------------
Subtotal---------------------------------
211,910
84,790
84,790 ______________
Total ------------------------------------
479,201
200,216
190,216 ______________
Total outside United States:
457
457
140
Army
----------------------------------------
180,817
150,
__________----
,
-
NavY
42, 079
21, 170
17, 456 --------------
_____________--___---_--------------
Air Farce
237,435
104,641
104,641 ____________-_
____
OSD-------------------------------------------
18,870
4,770
24,770 ---------- ---
Total----------------------------------------
479,201
281,038
287,324 _______-____--
Planning:
49
000
49
000
Army------------------------------------------
Navy
---------------------------
49,000
41,550
,
50,550
______________
,
50,550 ______________
---------------
_______________________
Includes Trident
(7,900)
(8,500)
(8,500)______________
_____
Air Force
------------------------
30,000
30,000
30,000 ______________
---------------
OSD-------------------------------------------
4,500
4,500
4,500 ______________
Total----------------------------------------
125,050
134,050
134,050 _____-______-_
Minor construction:
20
000
20
000
Army------------------------------------------
Navy
------------------
20,000
20,000
,
20,000
______________
,
20,000 ______________
------------------------
Air Force
------------------
-
24,000
24,000
24,000 ______________
-
-------------------
OSD-------------------------------------------
2,000
2,000
2,000 ______________
Access reads and minor land:
Nav
-------------------
3,000
7,200
7,200 ______________
y-----------------------
__________________________
Includes Trident
0
(2,200)
(2,200)______________
__
Air Force---------------------------------------
250
250
3,250 ______________
Total
-------------------------------
-
3,250
7,450
10,450 --------------
-------
-
Emergency construction: OSD_________________________
30,000
10,000
10,000 ______________
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 : CIA-RDP77MOOl44RO01100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
80
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AIR POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM
]In thousands of dollars]
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT
PROGRAM
(In thousands of dollars]
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/2~i CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIA'r10N REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT
PROGRAM-Continued
DOD
request
House
action
Recommended
Senate
action
Conference
report
INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued
Colorado: Army: Pueblo Army Depot__________________
;429
3429
6429
______________
Florida:
Navy: Naval Air Station, Jacksonville______________
2,678
2,687
2,676
______________
OSD:
DSA:
Defense fuel Support Point, L nn Haven___
78
78
76
______________
Defense Fuel Support Point, Tampa_______
66
66
66
______________
Subtotal_____________________________
14h
144
144
._._._________
Total________________________________
2,822
2,822
2,822
______________
Georgia:
Navy: Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany_________
256
256
256
______________
Air Force: Robins AFB___________________________
617
617
617
____________,_
Total----------------------------------------
873
873
873
.-------------
Hawaii:
Army: Schofield Barracks________________________
920
920
920
______________
Navy:
NavalStatlon,PearlHarbor__________________
5,128
5,128
5,128
______________
Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay________
402
402
402
______________
Subtotal_________________________________
5,530
5,530
5,530
______________
Totat____________________________________
6,450
6,450
6,450
______________
Illinois:
Army: ,
JolietAAP(deficiency)_________________.___.__
1,280
0
0
______________
Joliet AAP_________________________________
3,825
0
1,450
_____.________
Indiana:
Navy: Naval Ammunition Depot, Crane_______.____
3,800
3,800
3,800
______________
Air Force: Grissom AFB__________________________
996
996
996
_.__..._______
Total-------------?------------?-----------
4, 796
4,196
4, 796
-------?-----
Iowa: Army:lowa AAP______________________________
512
572
572
______________
Kentucky:
Army:
Fort Knox____________ _______________.______
10,291
10,291
10,291
______________
Lexington-Blue Brass A.D___________________
500
500
5Q0 __.___________
Louisiana:
Army: Fort Polk________________________________
286
286
286 ______________
Navy: Naval Personnel Center, New Orleans__..____
1, 001
1, 001
1, 001 ______________
Air Force:
Barksdale AFB_____________________________
1,411
1,411
1,411 ______________
England AFB_______________________________
1,060
1,060
1,060 ______________
Total--------------------------?----?----
3,758
3,758
3,758 --------------
Maine: Navy: Naval Air Station, Brunswick____________
191
191
191 ______________
Maryland:
Army:
Fort Detrick________________________________
2,520
2,.520
2,520 ______________
Fort Detrick(deficiency)______________..______
66
0
0 ____._________
Subtotal_________________________________
2,586
2,520
2,520 ______________
Navy:
Naval Station, Annapalis______________..______
854
854
854 ______________
Naval Air Test Center, PatuxentRiver_________
1,751
1,751
1,751 ______________
Subtotal_________________________________
2,605
2,605
2,605 ______________
Total------------------------------------
5,191
5,125
5,125 --------------
Approved For Release 2005/05/20: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20~CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT
PROGRAM-Continued
[in thousands of dollars[
DOD
State/service and installation request
House
action.
Recommended
Senate
action
Conference
report
INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued
Michigan: Army: Detroit Arsenal______________________
5121
j121
;121
______________
Missouri:
Army:
Lake City Armyy Ammunition Plant____________
Fort L
d W
d
385
385
385
--
______________
eonar
oo
__________________________
10,270
10,270
10,270
______________
Total------------------------------------
10,655
10,655
10,655
--------------
Nevada:
Navy: Naval Ammunition Depot, Hawthorne________
i
6,816
6,816
6,816
_________
A
r Force: Nellls AFB____________________________
199
199
199
_____
______________
Total----------------------------------------
7.015
7,015
7,015
--------------
New Jersey:
Army:
Fort Dix------------------------------------
rt Di
F
d
fi
i
114
114
114
------------
x (
o
e
c
ency)-------------------------
472
0
0
_-------_-----
Subtotal---------------------------------
586
114
114
--------------
Nary:
Naval Weapons Station, Earle_________________
N
l
i
2,520
2,520
2,520
______________
ava
A
r Station, Lakehurst__________________
115
115
115
______________
Subtotal------------------?---------_---
Ai
F
M
2,635
2,635
2,635
--------------
r
orce:
cGuire AFB_________________________
218
278
278
______________
Total--------------- ------------------------
N
Y
k
A
W
t
li
3,499
3 027
3 027
-----------?--
ew
or
:
rmy:
a
erv
et Arsenal__________________
1,722
1;722
1;722
__
Ohio: OSD: DSA: Defense Fuel Support Point, Cincinnati_
P
l
i
A
N
C
178
178
178
______
______________
ennsy
van
a:
rmy:
ew
umberland A.D____________
253
253
253
___________
South Carolina: Navy: Marine Corps Recruit Depot,
Parris Island-------------------------------------
S
th D
k
t
Ai
F
E
l
386
386
386
___
---?----__----
ou
a
a:
o
r
orce:
l
sworth AFB_______________
903
903
903
___________.__
Tennessee:
Army:
Holston AAP (deficiency)_____________________ 1,908
Mil
0
0
___-_______-__
an ArmyAmmunltionPlant________________ 2,611
V
2,611
2,611
___________.__
olunteer AAP______________________________ 2,180
2,065
2,065
______________
Total------------------------------------ 6,699
4,676
4,616
--------------
Texas:
Army:
Lone Star AAP_____________________________ 593
593
593
______________
Red River AD (deficiency)____________________ 2,817
0
0
___.___-____
_
U.S. Aeronautical Depot Maintenance Center___ 188
188
188
_
______________
7otat------------------------------------ 3,598
781
781
--------------
Virginle:
Army:
Fort Monroe-------------------------------- 288
288
288
-----------?--
Fort Lee--------------------?-------------- 150
150
150
--------------
Radford AAP (deficiency)____________________ 2,491
0
0
______________
Radford AAP_______________________________ 13,543
13,543
13,543
___________.__
Subtotai_________________________________ 16,478
13,981
13,981
______________
Navy: Navy Public Works Center, Norfolk__________ I, 500
1, 500
1, 500
______________
Air Force: Langley AFB-------------------------- 900
900
900
--------------
Totai---------------------------------------- 18,878
16,381
16,381
--------------
Washington:
Nary:
Naval Supply Center, Pugget Sound____________ 4,012
Naval Torpedo Station, Keyport_______________ 179
4,012
.179
4,012
179
______________
______________
Naval Air Station, Whidbey lsland____________ 1,354
1,354
1,354
______________
Total------------------------------------ 5,545
5,545
5,545
--------------
Various locations: Army: Deficiency authorization for
prior year program-------------------------------- 3,543
0
0
--------------
Approved For Release 2005/05/20: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :~IA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION--WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT
PROGRAM-Continued
iln thousands of dollars)
Recommended
DOD House Senate Conference
request action action report
INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued
Total inside United States
ArmY----------------?--------------?----------
Nav
369.110
348,021
349,471
----
y--------------------------------?---------
Air Force______________________________________
44,827
10,098
44,654
10
098
44 827
10;098
-------?-
--------
OSD-------------------------------------------
322
,
322
322
____________-_
------------?
Total----------------------------------------
124,357
103,095
104,718
---------?-?
OUTSIDE UNITED STATES
Puerto Rico: Navy: Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads._____
250
250
250
______________
Total outside United States, Navy______________
250
250
250
_________.____
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Jln thousands of dollars)
Recommended
DOD Hausa Senate Conference
request action action report
INSIDE UNITED STATES
Alabama:
Army:
Fort McClellan______________________________ j1, 142
Fort Rucker-------------------------?____
119
j1, 142
119
j1, 142
119
______________
--
--_--------_--
Subtotal--------------?--------_-------- 1,261
Air Force: Craig AFB, Selma______________________ 112
1,261
112
1,261
ll2
---?----_-_---
____._________
Total---------------------------------------- 1,373
1,373
1,373
--------------
Alaska:
Armyy,: Fort Richardson___________________________ 1,313
Air Force:
Cemplon AFB, Galena_______________________ 239
C
Cl
b
1,313
239
1,313
239
____....______
______.___
ape
e
urne AFS, Point Hope_______________ 141
141
141
____
Eielsan AFB, Fairbanks______________________
Gal
a Ai
rt
G
l
203
203
203
._.__._._..___
________.____
en
rpo
,
a
ena_______________________
I
di
M
490
490
490
_
____._
n
an
ountain AFS, Hughes________________
Kotzeb
AFS
K
t
b
797
797
7g7
_____.__
__ ___ - _
ue
,
o
ze
ue_____________________
M
h
D
282
282
282
_______
.
urp
y
ome AFS, College__________________
Sh
AFB
k
206
206
206
_
_____
____
emya
, At
a__________________________
S
arr
h
AFS
Ili
3,635
3,635
3,635
___________._.
p
evo
n
,
amna_____________________
Vari
333
333
333
___.___._:___.
ous--------------?- ??--------------?
314
314
314
------------?
Subtotal-----------?-------------------?
6,b4O
6,640
6,640
---_--_---
Total------------------------------------
7,953
7,953
_
7,953
--?---------?
Arizona:
Army: Fort Huachuca____________________________
514
514
514
_____________.
Air Farce:
Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson__________________
Luke AFB Gl
d
l
169
169
169
______________
en
a
e_________________________
Willia
AFB
Ch
290
290
290
_____________.
ms
,
andler______________________
119
119
119
______._._____
Subtotal---------------------------------
578
578
578
--------------
Total--?---------------------------------_
1,092
1,092
1,092
-------?-----
Arkansas:
Army: Pine Bluff Arsenal________________________
263
263
263
___.__________
Air Force:
Little Rock AFB, Little Rock__________________
Blytheville AFB
Bl
th
i
1,964
1,964
1,964
_______.______
,
y
ev
lle__________________
57
57
57
_.______._____
Subtotal---------------------------------
2,021
2,021
2,021
--------------
Total--?---------------------------------
2,284
2,284
2,284
--------------
Approved For Release 2005/05/20: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT
PROGRAM--Continued
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 S~IA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
FISCAL YEAR 1975 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION--WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT
PROGRAM-Continued
fln thousands of dollars
DOD
St
t
/
i
House
Recommended
Senate Conference
a
e
serv
ce and installation request
action
action report
INSIDE UNITED STATES-Continued
Air Force?
Moody AFB,Valdosta________________________
;306
;306
;306 ________._____
Robins AFB, Warner Robins__________________
51
51
51 ______________
Subtotal-------------------------------
357
357
357 --------------
rotal------------------------------------ 1, oas
1, ohs
1, Das --------------
Hawaii: Navy: Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay_..
Id
h
257
257
251 ______________
a
o: Air Force: Mountain Nome AF B, Mountain Home__
212
212
212 ______________
Ilinois:
Navy:
Navy Public Works Center, GreatLakes_._.____
2,352
2,352
2,352 ______________
Naval Training Center, Great Lakes______.___.
178
178
178 ______________
Subtotal_________________________________
2,530
2,530
2,530 ____________..
Air Force:
Chanute AFB, Rantoui_______________________
855
855
855 ._._____.____.
Scott AFB,Belleville________________________
928
928
.928 ______________
Subtotal_________________________________
1,783
1,783
1,783 _____._.____._
Total-------------?-?--------------------
4,313
4,313
4,313 --------------
Indiana:
Navyy: Naval Ammunition Depot, Crane_._.________
'
900
900
900 ______________
Air Force:
Grissem AFB, Peru____________________
259
259
259 __._._________
Total-------------------?------?------------
1,159
1,159
1,159 ------------
Kansas:
Army: Fort Riley________________________________
1, 466
1,466
-
1,4fi6 ________...___
Air Force: McConnell AFB, Wichita________________
64
64
64 _._____._.____
Total-----------------?----------------------
1,530
1,530
1,530 --------------
Kentucky:
Army:
Fort Campbell______________________________
16D
160
160 ___._.________
Fort Knox----------- ---- --?--------.----
3,305
3,305
3,305 --._------_.--
Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot_____________
1,514
1,514
1,514 __________._._
Subtotal------_-__?-- ------------------
4,979
4,979
4,979 ---.-----?---
Navy: Naval OrdnanceStaticn,Louisville______.___
482
482
482 ______________
Total---------------------?------------------
5,461
5,461
5,461 --------------
Louisiana:
Air Force:
Darksdaie AFB,Shreveport___________________
306
306
306 _...___.____ _
England AFB, Alexandria_____________________
84
84
84 ...______.____
Total-?-------------------------?--------
390
390
390 --------------
Maine: Air Force: Loring AFB, Limestone______________
1, 007
1,007
1,007 __..._________
Maryland:
Army:
Fort Detrick________________________________
150
150
150 ___.__..______
Fort Meade_________________________________
713
713
713 _____..____.._
Fort Ritchie________________________________
183
183
183 ______________
Subtotal_________________________________
1,046
1,046
1,046 ___._____._.__
Navy:
Naval Station, Annapolis_____________________
Naval Academy Annapolis
140
328
140
328
140 ___.____:_____
328
___________________
Naval Air Test tenter, Patuxent River_________
847
847
____________._
847 ______________
Subtotal_________________________________
1,315
1,315
1,315 _..___________
Air Force: Andrews AFB, Camp Springs.__.___..___
937
937
937 ______________
Total-------?----------------------??--------
3,298
3,298
3,298 --------------
Approved For Release 2005/05/20: CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/2~S CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
FISCAL YEAR 1976 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-WATER PDLLUTION ABATEMENT
PROGRAM-Continued
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
87
FISCAL YEAR 1916 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-WATER POLLUTION .ABATEMENT
PROGRAM-Continued
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
88
FISCAL YEAR 1916 APPROPRIATION REQUEST-MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT
PROGRAM-Continued
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/ :CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
Number
StateJservice, installation: of units
ROLL CALL VOTES IN COMMITTEE
1. By a vote of 14 to 8, the Committee voted to include $13,800,000
for the Navy installation on the Island of Diego Garcia in the Indian
Ocean.
2. By a vote of 13 to 8, the Committee defeated a motion to delete
$64,900,000 for the Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences.
3. By a vote of 13 to 8, the C%ommittee voted to delete $10,953,000 for
a reception center at Fort Benning, Georgia. The committee directed
the Army to make a report by March 31, 1976 on the one-station train-
ing concept.
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :g~lA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
~
~ Ib
6 op
a
aA~~
~
u`i"
ah
25
~
]J
p
v
+
Q
Q
Q
~b
~oA ~
~~
~
~
2b
ZS
y
go
~ V
~g ~
i
1
i
~ B'~ A~
5~
25
~
Q
~S
~
g~
~
0
~
~~~ ~
~ ~
c`?i
VL
~~
I
o
+
~
'~ ~
GC
00
00
OC
O ~
~~
~
w8
QQ
m23
Q
g$
5Q~ q
25~
Q
.
..
M o
Rai
m c p,b a'
5~ Q
25 r3
Q Q
25
25
Q5~
25 2
5
Q5~
2
5 2
5
~~o?~ v
c~8
55
~26
QQ
fit 25
Q
Q
8S Z5
mA p 4~
e1
~
ti
.+
zv
~M
o~ ~
~
~
~~
~~`
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~ v
p~&
~
~,~oA~=
~~
~~
g~
~~
~~
~
a~ m
v ~ ~
A~
~
~
~
~
9
9
~~ ~ ~ N
~
~
~
~Q
j
N
p6
6
z 40
!!
qq
~Ti
'
b
~
S
~
~
~
a
m
~
Q
~
~'
W
~
~'S
z~
~'~
AB~o
~O
O V O
oO
O
o
op
o
q
h
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
 Approved For Release 2005/050:CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3
~o
Oo
0o
QO
00
QO
Qo
c
QO
5ZO
$
.y
~
~
n
'e
'~"
'f"
O
O
O
O
~
~
O
Q
S?
N
1
'~"
'{"
S
8
8
O
S
O
8
O
8
O
O
O
O
O 1 I
O
80
i
O8
i
~
g
tD 1i
~ i
8
O i
~ ~~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
8
O i
I
a~
~O i
C~
ry
+r
8g
OO
8g
O
O
8S
O
O
g
O
~
8g
O
0
g8
O
O
gS
OO
88
O
O
8
~
O
~
l
~~
g
8
~(i
88
O~
Q
8
W ~i
S p0
d
~tl~
g
B
O
0
p
~
t0-
~j
~e0
~
j
mN
`
8
k
i
W
i
~
~
~
~
{'
~d ~
~ ~
p
4'i ~
t
~
Lei
~
p
r1 ~
~{'[
~~
~
~G^I~i
~ ~
~~p
yp
yy
y
GV N
pp
j
f
~D t15
T
~i
ti
I I
ti
'
ri
O
O
O
O
0
0
p
OO
O
O
O
~
0
O
Q
~O
OC
~ ~
OO
g
8~
g
S
00
8
8
Mai
S
~W
g
g
00
p
~[~
37~
aD~
~j
N
O
pp
~d~
~
~~
c~'.i
~ti
~LV
~
oDti
'"'
~~
"
~O
m c'"n
t__
t
o~
I
~Q
ca
~~
"'
N
ti
I
i
~
88
0
0
8S
0
0
g8
0
0.
g8
O 0
88
0
0
8g
0
0
g
S
0
0
QQ8
~O
g
g
0
0
~ ~
8g
Of]
8
8.p
8
8
00
g
M
~
g
8
e
M aN
8
8
00
g
d
~~
y
C
V
~
j
N
~
oN
8
t
OW
i i
~~
~~
~~
o
p
N~
e
p
m
~~
p
pp~
N
pp
~~
IN+iM
ti
~
.
~~
II
NN
N~
ti
ti
~~
~
$8$
O~
Qg
O i
Q
$$ i
QS
O i
S
O i
O i
O i
i
a
O
i
$ i
Z
Q
$
i
O '
~
~
~
8
O
~
~ 'i
~j
A
P
~
y{
~i ~
8
O
p
p
C-
~
~jj
M
~ i
(~
N I
~
'.i
~
y
MM
O
I
N
.~i
~
t+i
O
Approved For Release 2005/05/20 :CIA-RDP77M00144R001100180001-3