The original documents are located in Box 48, folder “7/2/76 HR12384 Military Construction Authorization Act FY 1977 (vetoed) (2)” of the White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized. Digitized from Box 48 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library 1EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ~~~ , OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
DATE: 7-1-76
TO: Bob Linder
FROM: D • Evans
Attached is the Senate Conf. Rept. for inclusion in the enrolled bill file on H.R. 12384. Thanks.
OMB FORM 38 !I· 94TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT 2d Session } { No. 94--937
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION, FISCAL YEAR, 1977
JuNE 9 (legislative day, JUN,E 3), 1976.-0rdered to b.e printed
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, Jr. (for Mr. SYMINGTON), from the committee of conference, submitted the following CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 12384]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 12384) to authorize certain construction at military installations and for other · purpOses, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amend ment insert the following:
TITLE I-ARMY SEc. 101. The Seeretary of the Army may establish or develop mili tary installations and facilities by acquiriri{J, constructing, converting, rehabilitatiri{J, or installing p_ermanent or temporary public works, including land acquisition, szte preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, for the following acquisition and construction:
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $33./393,000. Fort Campbell, K~ntucky, $65,387,000. Fort Oarson, Colorado, $10,589,000. Fort Drum, New York $7,114,000. ·Fort Gree71!1, Alaska, $9,854,,000. Fort H oOfl, Tewaa, $90,033,000. Fort Lewis, W aahington, $9,114,,000. Fort George G. Meade, M arylan¢, $1,142,000. 117-0080 2 3
Fort Ord, California, $14,453,000. Milan Army Am;m;unitionPlant, Tennessee, $51~,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $47,613,000. Radford Army Amm/lmition Plant, Virginia, $387,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $5,694,000. Sunflower Army Ammunition Plarnt, Kansas, $15~38,000, Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Air Field, Georgia, $39,634,000. Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant, Tennessee, $~85,000. Fort Wainwright, Alaska, $17,163,000. UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND United States Military Academy, West Point, New York, $~,857,000. Fort Belvoir, Virginia, $6,05~,000. · Fort Benninq, Georqia, $10,394,000. t!NITED STATES ·ARMY HEALTH SERVICES COMMAND Fort Bliss, Texas, $3,856,000. Fort Eustis, Virginia, $3,016,000. Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Colorado, $~44,000. Walter Reed Army Medical Center, District of Columbia, $1,108,000 Fort Gordon, Georgia, $~~~4,000. Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, $987,000. Fort Know, Kentucky, $10,379,000. UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY TRAFFIC COMMAND Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, $190,000. Sunny Point Army Terminal, North Carolina, $531,000. Fort Lee, Virginia, $1,11/i,OOO. Fort Rucker, Alohama, $1,841,000. NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY Fort Sill, 0 klahoma, $1,181,000. Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, $15,~49,000. V arioua locations, $~.P75,000.
UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Fort McNair, District of Columbia, $7~~,000. EIIJHTH UNITED STATES ARMY,· KOREA UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND Various locations, $13,669,000.
Aberdeen Provinfl Grownd, Maryland, $7~6,000. UNITED STATES ARMY, JAPAN Detroit Arsenal, Michigan, $340,000. Kansas Army Ammunition Plant, Kansas, $493,000. Okinawa, $1~4,000. Letterkenny Army Depot, Pennsylvania, $8,357,000. Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, $495,000. UNITED STATES ARMY SECURITY AGENCY Natick Laboratories. Massachusetts, $118,000. Picatinny Arsenal. New Jersey, $560,000. V ariouslocations, $4,480,000. Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, $6,934,000. Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado. $417,000. UNITED STATES ARMY, EUROPE Radford Army Am.munition Plant, Virginia, $~5,663,000. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, $1,1~6,000. Germany, various locations, $15,907,000. Scranton Arm11 Ammunition Plant. Pennsylmania, $16~,000. Italy, various locations, $1,088,000. Seneca Army Depot, New York, $421.000. Various locations: For the United States share of the cost of multi Sharpe Army Depot, California. $lili1,000. lateral programs for the acquisition or construction of militatry facili Sierra Army Depot, California, $1,489,000. ties and installations, including international military headquarters, Tooele Army Depot, Utah, $~,57~,000. . for the collective defense of tlie North Atlantic T1·eaty Area, $80 000,- USA Fuel Lubrication Re.~earch J:abomtory, Texas, $469,000. 000. Within thirty days after the end of each quarter, the Secretdry of Watervliet Arsenal, New York, $3.383,000. the Army shall furnish to the Committees on Armed Services and on White Saruls Missile Ranqe, New lflewioo. $31,.9,000. Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives a descrip Woodbridge Research Facility, Virqinia, .~~,130,000. tion of obligations incurred as the United States share of such multi Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, $6,978,000. lateral programs. NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY AMMUNITION FACILITIES Various locations, $49,393,000. H olaton Army Ammunition Plant, Te'YIIYI.essee, $1,118,000. Indiana Army Ammunition Plant, I ndiarna, $6,758,000. EMERGENCY OONSTRUOTION Lone Star Army Am;m;unition Plant, Texas, $116,000. SEc. 10~. The Secretary of the Army may establish or de·velop Army Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant, Texas, $86,000. installations and facilities by proceeding with construction made nee-
... 5
CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS essary by clw;n,ges in Army '1'1l!bssion8 t1lflll re:JporUJibilities which have been occasioned by (1) unforeseen aecu,rity conaiderationa, (!8) new NO!Val Support Aotiv~ty, Brooklyn, New Yl?"',k, $491,000. weapons develo[J111..6nts, ( 3) new and unforeseeen research 0/fUJ., develop Naval Support Activ~ty, New Orleans, Louunana,,~1,400./)00. ment requirements, or (4) improved production BchedUtes, if the Secre Commander in Ohief Pacific, Pearl Harbor, Hawa~~ $4,300,000. tary of lJefense determines that deferral of suck construction for in Naval Support Activity, Philadelphia, Pe'flffl,8ylvanza, $~01./)00. clusion in the next Military Construction Autkorization Act would be Naval Support Activity, Seattle, Washington, $~67,000. . . inconsistent with itnterests of national secu,rity and, in connection there Headquarters Naval D·lstriot Washington, lVashmgton, Dutrwt of with to acquire, construct, convert, rehalJititate, or install permanent Oolwmhia, $1 ,300./)00. or temporary public works, including land ac!J.ui8ition, site prepara tion, appurtenancea, utilities and equi[J111..6nt iln the total amount of COMMANDER IN CHIEF, ATLANTIC FLEET $10/)00,000. The Secretary of the Army, or his de:Jignee, skatl notify the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate arut House of Bepre Naval Air Station, Cecil Fiel1, Florida, $!81tEf!OO: . sentatwes, immediately upon reaching a final deciaion to implement, Oceanographic System Atlantw, D(Jiflb Neck, Vzrg~nza, $8,048,000. of the cost of construction of any public work undertaken under tkis NO!Val Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida, $6,101,000. Bection, including those real estate actions pertaining thereto. T~ Naval Station, Mayport, Florida, $1,674./)00. . with, may acquinJ, construct, convert, rekabititate, or install perrna.nent NO!Val S'libmarine Base, Netv London, Oonneotwut, $300./)00. autkorization 'Will ewpire upon the date of enactment of the Military Flag Administrative Urnit, Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, $!8~3./)00. Construction A.utkorization Act for fiscal year 1978 except for th08e Naval Station, Norfolk, Virgi~ $tE4,!846,000. public works projects concer-ning which the Committees on Armed N O!Val Air Station, Oceana, Virgznia, $14,1,151./)00. Se1'vicea of the Senate atnd House of Bepresentatwes hatve been notified pursuant to this section prior to such date. 00111/ANDER IN CHIEF, PACIFIC FLEET TITLE II-NAVY NO!Val Station, Adak, Alaska, $1,418./)00. . Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii, $12,836,000. SEc. !801. The Secretary of the Navy may establish or develop mili Naval Air Station, Fallon, Nevada, $tE,376,000. tary installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, converting, Naval Air Station, Miramar, California, $.1,,958./)00. rekabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, in Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, California, $896,000. cluding land acquisition, Bite preparation, appurtenances, utilitiea, NO!Val Air Station, North Island, Califomia, $11,720,000. and equipment, for the following ac!J.uiBition and corUJtruction: N (lll)al Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $4,051,000. . NO!Val Submarine Base, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $975./)00. INBIDE THE UNITED STATES NO!Val Facility, Point Sur, Oalifomia, $160,000. N(ffl)al Station, San Diego California, $8,386,000. TRIDENT FACILITIES Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Washington, $1,055,000.
Various locations, $9!8,!878,000. NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING
MARINE CORPS N O!Val Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, $1,639,000. Naval Supply Corps Sckool, Athens, Georgia, $670,000. Marine Corpa Supply Center, Albany, Georgia, $1,965./)00. Navy Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine Training Oenter, Charles- Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, $!8!8,001./)00. ton, South Oarolina, $~.504,000. Marine CorpB Base, Camp Pendleton, Califo1"1lia, $11!,71!0./)00. NO!Val Air Station, M emphiB, Te71!Mssee, $1,871,000,. Marine Corpa Air Station, Cherry P,Qint, North Carolina, $526,000. Naval Submarine School, New London, Oonnectu:ut, $672,000. Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Harwaii, $1,900./)00. Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, Rhode Island, Fleet Marine Force Altantic, Norfolk, Vir9inia, $799./)00. $490/JOO. F.,_.,.!;l Headquarters, Fleet Marine Force PacifiC, Camp Smith, Oahu, Naval School of Diving and S .. l 7 N011Jal Stibm.o,riM Training Center, San Diego, California, Naval Undersea Center, San Diego, California $811,000. $3,PW,OOO. Navy Public Works Center, San Francisco, California, $190,000. N011Jal Training Center_, San Diego, California, $5,455,000. Mare Island. Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California, $9,302,000. Naval Air Station, Wn,iting Field, Florida, $1./308,000. OCEANOGRAPHER OF THE NAVY BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY Naval Oceanographic Center, Bay Saint LouiB, Milsissippi, Naval Regional Medical Center, Jacksonville, Florida, $7,393,000. $7 ,J,IJO,OOO. Ports'ITI.UUth N011Jal Regional Medical Clinic, Kittery, Mai!M, NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY $4/)58,000. Various locations, $34,581,000. Naval Regional Dental Center, Newport, Rhode bland., $1,975,000. Naval Hospital, Orlando, Florida, $23,850,000. Navy Environmental and. Preventive Medicine Unit No. 6, Pearl OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES Harbor, Hawaii, $283,000. COMMANDER IN CEfiEF, ATLANTIC FLEET Naval Regional Dental Center, San Diego, California, $2,501,000. Navy Environmental and. Preventive Med.iciM Unit No. 5, Sam, N011Jal Station, Keflavik, Iceland, $6,009,000. Diego, California, $1.j370,000. NO//Jal Station, Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, $4,160,000. CHIEF OF NAVAL MATERIAL COlli/ANDER IN CHIEF, PACIFIC FLEET Naval Air Rework Facility, Alameda, California, $1,191,000. · N 0//Jal M agaziM, Guam, Mariana Islands, $1,861,000. Puget Sound. Naval Shipyard, Bre'.IIU3rton, Washington, $10,876,000. Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South Carolina, $11.j356,000. NAVAL TELECOIIIIUNICATIONS COMMAND Naval Weapons Station, Charleston, South Carolina, $8,796,000. Pola:ris. Missile Facility, Atlantic, Clucrleston, South Carolina, Classified location, $1,832,000. $2,315/)00. Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California, $950,000. NAVAL SECURITY GROUP COIII/AND Naval Weapons Support Center, Crane, Indiana, $988,000. Naval Weapons Station, Earle, New Jersey, $2 835,000. Naval Security Group Activity, Keflavik, Iceland., $3,000,000. National Parachute Test Range, El Centro, C'"Jifornia, $732,000. Naval Air Facility, El Centro, California, $3,500,000. NUCLEAR 'WEAPONS SEClJRITY Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mis8issippi, $4,551,000. . Various locations, $2,494,000. Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, Maryland., $383,000. Naval Torpedo Station, Keyport, Washington, $2,145,000. EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION Portsmouth Naval Shipyard., Kittery, Maine, $12,789,000. SEc. 202. The Secretary of theNavy may establish or develop Navy Naval Air Station, Lakehurst, New Jersey, $117,000. installations and. facilities by proceeding with construction made Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California, $3,981,000. necessary by changes inNavy missions and. responsibilities which have Navy Ships Parts Control Center, Mechanicsburg, Pennsyl/vania, been occasioned by (1) unforeseen security considerations,( 2) new $135,000. . weapO'n8 developments, (3) MW and unforeseen research and. develop Navy Public Works Center,Norfolk, Virginia $454,000. rnent requirements, or (4) improved production schedules, if the Naval Air Test Center, Pat'IUJ)ent·River, Maryland., $2,701,ooo. Secretary of Defense determines that deferral of such construction for Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $11,985,000. inclusion in the neilJt Military Construction Authorization Act would Naval Air Rework Facility, Pensacola, Florida, $7,784,000. be inconsistent with interests of naUonal security and., in conMction Navy Public Works Center, Pensacola, Florida, $95,000. th.erewith, may acquire, construct, convert, rehabilitate, or install per Navy Aviation Supply Ojfiee, Philadelphia; PenMylvania, $629,000. manent or temporary public works, inel!uding land. acquisition, site Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pennsyl/vania, preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, in the total $4,607,000. . amount of $10,000,000. The Secretary of the Navy, or his designee, Pacific Missile Test Center, Point Mugu, California, $3,087,000. shall notify the Committees on Armed Se7"1Jices of the Senate and Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California, House of Representatives, immediately upon reaching a decision to $183,000. implement, of the cost of construction of any public work undertaken Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, $5,909,000 • • ' . s l t under this section, incltding those ruil estate actions pertaining Reue Air Force Base, Teil!aS, $W,OOO. thereto. This authorization will ewpire upon the date ofenactment of William,a Air Force Base, Ariuma, $825,000. the Military Oonst'f'l«Jtion Authorization Act for fiscal year 1978 ew· cept for those puhlic works projects concerning which the .OO'ITIIllllittees A.IR UNIVERSITY on Armed Se'f"')ices of the Senate and House of Representatives have been notified pursuant to this section prim· to lflJCh date. Ma;»well Air Force Base, Alabama, $1§,000. DEFICIENCY AUTHORIZATIONS A.LA.IIKA.N A.IR COMMAND SEc. te03. Public Law 93-166, as amended, is amended by striking Elmendorf Air Force Base, Altuka, $S10,000. out in clause (2) of section 602 "$549,849,000" and "$608,682,000" and Shemya Air Force Base, Alaska, $3,110,000. inserting in place thereof "$560,849,000" and "$619,682,000", FortYukon Air Force Station, Alaska, $448,000. respectively. TITLE III-AIR FOROE llEADflUA.RTERS COIII/AND SEc. 301. The Secretary of the Air Force may establish or develop Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, $S,880,000. military installations and facilities by acquiring, const1'U(}ting, con Bolling Air Force Base, District of OoZtwm,bia, $1,415,000. verting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporo,ry public works, including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, 1/ll.ITA.!lY AIRLIFT COIII/AND u.tilities, and equipment, for the following acquisition and const1'U(}tion: .Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, $11,377,000. INSIDE THE UNITED STATES Charleston Air Force Base, South Oarolina,$1,468,000. DMer Air Force Base, Delaware, $900,000. AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas, $B,905/)00. M cOhord Air Force Base, Washington, $~86,000. Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida,$1,720,000. Norton Air Force Base, California, $900,000. Pope Air Force Base, North Oarolina, $200,000. A.JR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND Scott Air Force Base, /llinois,$90,000. Hill Air Force Base, Utah, $16,587,000. · PACIFIC AIR FORCES Kelly Air Force Base, Tewas,$2,374,000. McOlellanAir Force Base, California, $1,194,000. Hickam Air Force Bue, Hmwaii, $4,145,000. Newark Air Force Station, Ohio, $266,000. Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, $10,051,000. STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, $5,348,000. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 0 hio, $35,804,000. Barksdale Air Force Bue, Louisiana, $3,628,000. Beale Air Force Base, Oalifornia, $7,8!M,OOO. AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND Blytheville Air Force Base, Arkansas, $2,200,000. Oar8Well Air Force Base, Tereas, $732,000. Arnold Engineering Development Oenter, Tennessee, $439,010,000. Oastle Air Force Base, California, $1,270,000. Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, $35/H)OO. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, .Arizona, $2,192,000. Laurence G. Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, $671,000. Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, $100,()f)(). Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, $198,000. , Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, $~,441,000. Pillar Poitnt Air Force Station, Oalifornia,$450,000. Griffiss Air Force Base, New York, $699,000. V arioua locatWns, $10/J5(),000. K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Michigan, $g'f0,000. Malm,atrom Air Force Base, Montana, $3,150,000. AIR TRAINING COMMAND McOonneZl Air Force Base, Kansas, $~,948,000. Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, $980,000. OolumbUB Air Force Base, Mississippi, $ ,000. Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, $38,060,000. Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, $1,350 . Plattsburgh Air Force Base, Ne1.v York, $588,000. Mather Air Force Base, Oaliforrda, $3,883,000. Rickenbacker Air Force Base, Ohio, $704,000. Randolph Air Force Base, Tereas,$4,927,000. Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, $1,454,000. s. Rept. 93? 0 - 16 • 2 ... , . 10 11 Whiteman Air Force Base, Musouri, $133,000. ization Act would be inconsiJJtent with interests of national seaurity Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan, $1,607,000. and in connection therewith, may acquire, construct, convert, reha bilitate, or install permanent .or temporary public '!-o_orka, incl!udi:"fJ TACTICA.L AIR COMMANIJ land acquuition site preparatwn, appurtenances, util~tus, and eqwp ment in the tot'az amount of $10,000,000. The SeMetary of the Air England Air Force Base, Louuiana,$198,000. Force or hi8 designee, shall notify the Committees on Armed Services Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, $500,000. of the' Senate and House of Representatives, immediately upon reach Dulce Air Force Base, Arizona, $987,000. ing a final decUJion to implement, of the cost of cO'IUJtructwn of any 111 acDill Air Force Base, Florida, $1,022,000. public work wndertaken under thu section, including those real estate Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, $5,796,000. actiO'IUJ pertaining thereto. Thu auth.ori.e,ation will eropire upon the Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, South Carolina, $1,570,000. date of enactment of the Military CO'IUJtruction Auth.or/.e,ation Act fo1' Nellu Air Force Base, Nevada, $24/),000. fiscal year 1978 eaJcept f01' those public works projects concerning Seymour-Johmon Air Force Base, North Carolina, $1,030,0:JO. which the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of East Coast Range, $7,500,000. Representatives have been notified pursua;nt to this section pri01' to such date. UNITED BTA.TES AIR FORCE ACADEMY TITLE IV-DEFENSE AGENCIES United States Air Force Academy, Colorado, $354,000. SEc. 1,01. The SeMetary of Defeme may establish 01' develop mili tary V!ultallatiO'IUJ and facilities by acquiring, constructing, converting, NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY rehabilitating, or imtalli!ng permanent 01' tempOTary public works, Various locatiom, $15,523,000. incl!udinf! land acquuition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities and equipment, for the following acq:uwion UiuJ construction: AIR INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE USE ZONES INSIDE THE UNITED STATES Various locatio'IUJ, $.18,217 ,000. DEFENSE MAPPING AOENOY OuTSIDE THE UNITED STATES Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center, Saint Louis, Missowri, AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND $1,023,000. Defense Mapping Agency Topographic Center, Bethesda, Maey Classified location, $1.j!JOO,OOO. land, $405,000. DEFENSE SUPPLY AOENCJ; STRATEGIC AIR COMMA.NIJ Cameron Station, Aleroandrla, Virginia, $8,000,000. Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, $4,110,000. Defeme Construction Supply Center, Col!umbus, Ohio, $855,000. Defense Electronics Supply Center, Dayton, Ohio, $130,000. UNITED STATES AIR FORCES IN EUROPE De feme Fuel Support Point, Oincinnati, Okio, $191,000. Defense FuelSuppOTt Point, Lynn Haven, FlOTida, $1.j!J93,000. Variouslocatiom, $38,000,000. Defense Fuel Support Point, Melville, Newport, Rhode Island, $21&5,000. NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY Defeme General Supply Center, Richmond, Virginia, $1,624,000. Defeme Logutics Service Center, Battle Creek, Michigan, $1,- Various locatio'IUJ, $13,180,000. 862,000. . Defense Property Disposal Office, Ayer, Fort Devens, M assaohusetts, EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION $500,000. SEc. 302. The Secretary of the Air Force may establuh or develop Defense Property Disposal Office, Dul!uth Air Fo1'ce Base, Minne Air Force imtallatiO'IUJ OJ1Ui, facilities by p1'oceeding with cO'IUJtruction sota, $135,000. made necessary by changes in Air Force musio'IUJ and resPO'IUJibilities Defense Property Disposal Office, Groton., qonnecticut, $2/11,000. which have been occasioned by ( 1) unforeseen seaurity cO'IUJidera De feme Property Dupoaal Office, G·unter Atr Force Base, Alabama, tiO'IUJ, (2) new weapom developments, (3) new and unforeseen re $150,000. sea1'ch and development requirements, 01' ( 4) improved production Defeme Property Disposal Office, Fort Riley, Kamas, $771&,000. schedules, if the SeC1'etary of De feme determines the deferral of such Defense Property Disposal Office, Wurtsmith, Michigan, $162,000. cO'IUJ~tion for inclusion in the neaJt Military C omtruction Author- • ~: . 18 12 quire sole in.terMt in privately owned 0?' Department of Housing and TERlJliNAL PROCUREMENT Urban Development held family housing unitB in luu of conatruating Harrisville, Michif!an, $700,000. all or a portion. of the family housing UJUthorieed by this section, if V e?'ona, New York, $1&00,000. he, 0?' htB designee, determines suah action to be in the beBt interests of the United States; but any family housing wnits acquired under authority of this 81.ibsectiun 8hall not exceed the co8t limitatiom Bpeci N.ll.TIONAL SECURITY AGENCY fied in this Bection fO?' the project nO?' the limitations on size specified Fort GeO?'f!e G. Meade, Maryland, $1&,1&47,000. in 8ection B684 of title 10, United States Code. In no C(l8e may family housing unitB be acquired under this BUbsection through the exercise OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES of eminent domain authority; and in no • .l.& . . APPROPkiATION$ LIMITATIONS Alaaka, 1Ia/waii, and Guam, an average of $935 per month for eMh military department, or the amount of $450 per month for any one SEc. 602. '!'here are authoriz-ed to be appropriated 8UCh sums as may unit.". · be nece.ssary for the purposes of this Act, but appropriations for pub~ (b) Section 507(b) of Public Law 93-166 (87 Stat. 661, 676) is lie worlc8 projects authorized by title I, II, Ill, IV, and V shall not amended by striking wt "$380" and $670" in the first sentence and emceed-- inserting in lieu thereof "$/1)5" and "$700", re&pectiveZy. (1) for title I: lrn&ide the United States, $419,837 ,000; wtside the United States, $164,661/)00; or a total of $584,498,000. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIIIS (2) for title II: Inside the United States, $481,580,000; out side the United States, $19,356/)00; or a total of $500./}36,000. Stt:. 504. NotWithstanding the proviBions of any other 14,w: (3) for title Ill: Inside the United States, $679,759,000; out (1) The Se&retar"!J of the Navy is authorized to settle claims re side the United States, $56/150/)00; or a total of $736,409,000. garding con&truction of public quarter& at the Naval Station, ( 4) for title IV: A total of $32./}46,000. OhtJ/rle,.ston, South Carolina, in the amount of $1/175/)00. (5) for title V: Military Family Housing, $1,304,5S3/)00. (S) The Searetar"!J of the Air Force is authorized to settle claims regarding construction of mobtle home fMilitiea at,MacDill Air COST VARIATIONS Force Base, Florida, in the OJ/MI!ilnt of $88,000, plus intere&t at 8% ,per centum from April23, 1975, the date of settlement. SEc. 603. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), any a'fiWIJJltt specified in titleB I, II, Ill, and IV of this Act may, .HOrJ.SINO, APPBOl:>RIATION.S LIMITATIONS at the discretion of the Secretary of the military department or [)irec tor of the defense agency concerned, be increased by 5 per centum ~Ec. 505. There u authorized to be approp:riated for use by the wf,en inside the United States (other than Ha;waii and Alaska) and Secretar"!J of Defense, or his designee, for mil~tary family housing as by 10 per centum when outside the United States or in Hawaii and authoriz-ed by la;w for the following purposes: Alaska, if he determines that IJUCh increase (1) is required for the sole (1) For const1'tl UNIT COST LllliTATIONB (c) The conveyance authorized by subsection (a) shall be subject Sec. 6()(J. None of the authority contained in titlea I, II, III, aM IV to the following condition& aM such other terms and co'IUlitions as the of this Act sludl be dee11U!d to authoriu any building construction Secretary of the Navy; or his designee, shall determine necessary to project iMide the United States in er.ccess ·of a unit cost to be deter protect the interests of the United States: mined in proportion to the appropriate area construction cost inde(C, (1) The lands so conveyed shall be used primarily for the con based on the followitng unit cost limitations where the area construc st1'UCtion and operation of an airship museum to collect, prese1"1Je, tion inder.c is 1.0: and display to the public materials, 11U!morabilia, aM other items (1} $39 per aguare /f!ot for permanent ba1"1'aCk8; of historical significance and interest relative to the develop11U!nt (e) $4/J per square· foot for bachelor ojftcer quarters; and use of the airship, and for purposes incidental thereto. 'lllnleas the Secretarv of ]Jefense, or his designee, determines that be (93) All right, title, and interest in and to such laMs, and any cawe of special tnrC1J.Im8tances, application to such project of the improvements eonst1'UCted thereon, shall revert to the United limitations on unit costs contained in tAis section is impracticable. States., whioh shall have an im11U!diate right of entry thereon, N otwithBtaMing the limita:tiona contained in prior M ilitm"!f Construe if the conatructio.n.of the airsldp museum is not uMertaken with ton Authorization Acts on unit costs, the limitations on sucA oosts con ~n five years frtJm the date of BUCh conveyance or vj the lands tained in this section shall apply to all prior authorizations for BUCh conveyed shall cease to be used for the purposes specified in para construction not heretofore repet;iled and for-which construction con gmph (1). .. tracts have not been awarded by the date of enact11U!nt of this Act. · ( 3) All e.:vpenses for su'f'Veys aM the preparation and ewecution of legal documents necessary or appropriate to carry out the pro 1/!CBEAB~B Fqll SOI.All HEAT/NO AND SOLAR COOLING EfJUIPllENT visions of this section shall be borne by the Airsldp Association. Sec. 607. The Secretary of Defense shall encourage the utilization of LAND OONVEYANCE1 WA'ST VlllGlNIA solar energy as a source of energy for projects authorized bY. this Act where utilization of· solar energy would; be practical aM eco . SEc. 609; Nrttwithstanaing any other provisions rd law, the Secretary nomically feasible. In addition to all other' authorized variations of of Defense, or· his designee, is authorized to ·convey to the city of cost limitations or floor area limitations contained in this Act or prior South Oharleaton, West Virginia, subject to such terms and conditionJJ Military Conatruction Authorization Acta, the Secretary of Defense, as the Secretary shall deem to be in the public interest, all right, title, or his designee, may permit increases in the cost limitation& or floor aM interest of the United States in and to a section of laM located area limitations by such amounts as may .be necessary to equip any on the property fo1'11U!rly known as the South Charleston Navol Ord 7Jrojeots with solar heating aM/or solar cooling equipment. · nanp_e Plant, with improvements, such laM co1111isting of aprowimately 4.5 acres. In consideration of such conveyance by the Secretary, the . LAND CONVEYANCE, NEW JERSEY city of South Charleston shall convey to the United States unencum bered fefj title. to eight acres of land owned by the mwnicipality, im Sec. 608. (a) The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to convey, proved ~n a manner. acceptable to the Secretary, and subject to such without oonaideration, to the Airship Association, a nonprofit orga other conditions as are acceptable to the Secretary. The e(Cact acreages nization incorporated uMer the laws of the State ofNew Jersey, all and legal desmiptions of both properties are to be determined by .ht, title, arid interest of the United States in aM to that portion accurate SU1"Veys as mutually agreed upon by the Secretary and the the. laMs comprising the Naval Air Station, Lakehurst, New Jersey, city of South Charleston. The Secretary is a.uthoriud to accept the t scrihed in subsectihn (b), for use as a permanent site for the museum lands so conveyed to the United States, which lands shall be admin~ described in subsection (c), subject to ao'IUlitions of use set forth in BUCh istered by the Depa:rtment of the Army. ~JJ,tbseetion. (b) The laM authorised to be conveyed by subsection (a) is mcer :STUDIES OF IlEUBE OF MILITARY BASES tg,in pat'Cel of laM containing 13.98 acres, more or less, situated in Ooean. Oounty, New Jersey, being a part of the Naval Air Station, Sec. 610. (a) Whenever a final decision has been made to close any Lakehurst, New Jersey, aM more particularly described as follows: military installation located in the United States, Guam, or Puerto · Be{!i'Mifinq at a point on the westerly side of Ocean County Rico and, because of the location, facilities, aM other particular char \ Route Numbered 51,.7, 205.1,.0 feet northerly from the intersection acteristics of such installation, the ~..~ecretary of Defense determines ~ of the center line of new road aM the westerly aide of Route that such installation may be suitable for so11U! specific Federal or ~;; NW'mbered 547 thence (1) north 10 degrees 11,. minutes 19 secoMs State use potentially beneficial to the Nation, the Secretary of Defense ~· east, 770.e5 feet along the westerly edge of road to a point thence is authorized to co'IUluct such studies, including, but not limited to, P, • (2l north 66 degrees 35 minutes 41 seconds u-est, 721,..55 feet to a the preparation of an environ11U!ntal impact statement in accordance ~ pO'IInt thence (3) south 23 degrees 21,. minutes19 secoMs 'meat. 750 with the National Envi1'0n11U!ntal Policy Act of 1969, in connection ,r feet to a point thence (4) south 66 degrees 35 minutes 1,.1 seetmdB with such installation and such potential use as may be necessary to " east, 9fJO feet to the point and place of beginning. provide information suf!icient to make souM conclusions and recom- 11U!Mations regarding the possible use of suck installation. ~ · ..; .. . . 20 21 (b) Any study conducted under authority of thia section shall be .. submitted to the President and the Congress together with such com impacts, as required by theNational Environmental Policy Act of ments a11firecommenda_tions as the Secretary of Defense 'f11!LY deem 1969, that may result from tAe proposed closure or reduction; and approprzate. Such studws shall also be available to {fie publzc. . then . (c) As used in thia section, the term "military installation" includes (C) the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military any camp, post, station, base, yard, or other installation under the juria departinentconcerned submits to the Committees on Armed Serv diction of any military department. · ices of the House of Representati,vesand the Senate his final deci (d) There are authO'I'ized to be appropriated ttuch 81.llfll;8 as may be sion to close or significantly reduce such installation and a detailed necessary to carry out the proviaions of thia section. justification for his decision, together with the estimated fiscal, ecMwmic, budgetary, environmental, strategic, and operational IMPACT ASSISTANCE, NON-PPOFIT COOPERATIVES consertuences of the proposed closu·re or reduction; and then (D) a period of at least ninety days ewpires following the date SEc. 611. Notwithstanding section 7 of the Act of August 23, 1912 on wAich tAe justification referred to in cLause {C) has been sub (31 U.S.C. 679), the Secretary of Defense i8 authorized to use any mitted to such committees. funds appropriated to carry out the provisions of section 610 of the (b) For purposes of thia section, the term "milita1'Y installation" Military Construction Act, 1971 ( 84 Stat.1'224) to reimburse nonprofit, means any camp, p~t, station, base, yard, or other facility under the mutual aid telephone cooperatives for their capital expenditures for authority of the Department of Defense- the purchase and installation of nontactica.l com1TI!Unications equip (1) which is located within any of the several States, the ment and related facilities, to the extent the Secretary determines that District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or (J) such expenditures are not otherwise recoverable by such coopera Guam; and tives, (2) such expenditures were mcurred as the direct result of the ('2) at which not less than five lmndred civilian personnel are construction, ~tallation, testing, and operation of the SAFEGUARD authorized to be employed. Antiballiatic Miasile System, and (3) such cooperatives, as a result of (c) For purposes of this section, the term "civilian personnel" means the deactivation and termination of such system, would BUBtain an direct-hire permanent civilian employees of the Department of unfair and excessive financial burden in the absence of the financial Defense. assiatance authorized by thia section. · · (d) Thia section shall not apply to any closure or reduction if the P1•esident certifies to the Congress that such closure or reduction BASE REALINEMENTS 1TI/U8t be implemented for reasons of any military emergency or na tional security or if such closure or reduction was publicly announced SEc. 61'2. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of lOIW, no action prior to January 1, ~976. may be taken prior to October 1, 1981, to effect or implement-. (1) the closure of any military installation; NAVAL MUSEUM, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA ('2) any reduction in the authorized level of civilian personnel at any military installation by more than O'ne thousand civilian SEc. 613 .. The Congress hereby expresses its approval and encourage personnel or 50 per centum of the level of such personnel author ment with respect to the establishment, by the State of South Caro ized as of March 1,1976, or the end of the fiscal year immediately , lina, of a na1Jal and 1naritime museum m the city of Charleston, South preceding the fiscal year in tohich the Secretary of Defense or the Carolina, and recognizes the hiatorical importance of such museum and Secretary of the military department concerned notifies the Con the patriotic purpose it i8 intended to serve. gress that such installation is a candidate for closure or significant reduction, whiche1,er occurs later; or AMENDMENT TO TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE; REAL (3) any construction, conversion, or rehabilitation at any other PROPERTY EXCHANGE military installation (whether or not such installation is a mili SEc. 614. Section '266'2(a) of title 10, United States Code, i8 amended tary installation as defined in subsection (b) which will or matt/ be by adding at the end thereof a new sentence as follmos: "The report ·required as a result of the relocation of ci1Jilian personnel to such required by this subsection to be submitted to the Committees on other installation by reason of any closure or reduction to which Armed Se1'1Jices of the Senate and House of Representatives concern this section applies; inrj any report of excess real property described in clause ( 5) shall con unless- tavn a certification by the Secretary concerned that he has considered ( A) the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military the feasibility of ewchanging such property for other real property department concerned notifies the Congress in tfYI'iting that such authorized to be acquired for military purposes and has determined military installation i8 a candidate for closure or significant re that the property proposed to be declared excess i8 not suitable for such duction; and then pwrpose.". (B) a period of at least nine months expires following the date on which ttuch notice was given, during which period the depart SHORT TITLE ment,. concerned has identified the full range of environmental SEc. 615. Titles I, II, III, IV, V, and VI of this Act may be cited as the:.:" M.U.itq.ey_ C.({nstruction ,Authorization· Act, 1977". 22 ' . TITLE VII-GUARD AND RESERVE FOROES FAO/L/TIES SHORT TITLE AUTHORIZATION FOR FACILITIES SEc. 703. This title may be cited as the "Guard and Reserves Forces Facilities Auth.orization Act, 1977". · SEc. 701. SUbject to chapter 133 of title 10, United States Oode, the And the Senate agree to the same. SeC1'etary of Defense may estMli8h or develop additional facilities for the Guard and Reserve Forces, including the acquisition of land there STUARTSYMINGTON, for, but the cost of such facilities &hall not eroceedt-- JOHN c. STENNIS, HENRY M. JACKSON, (1) For the Department of the Army: HowARD "\V. CANNON, (a) Army National Cfuard of the United States, $5,4.,74$,000. (b) Army Reserve, $4.4.,459,000. HARRY.F. BYRD, Jr. PATRICK J. LEAHY, (.?~) For the Department of the Navy: Naval and Marine Oorps JouN-ToWER, Reserves, $91,800,000. (3} For the Department of the Air Force: STROM THUBMOND, BARRY GOLDWATER, (a) Air National Guard of the United States, $33,900,000. Managers on the Part of the Senate. (b) Air Force Reserve, $9,773,000. RicHARD H:IcHoRD, WA.l'f!ER OF CERTA.IN RESTRICTIONS MELVIN PRicE, WM. J. RANDALL, SEc. 709. The Secretary of Defense may establi8h or develop instal CHARLES N. WILSoN, lations and facilities under thi8 title without regard to section 364.8 of RICHARD c. WHITE, the Revi8ed Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.O. 599), and sections ,4.774 JACK BRINKLEY, and 9774 of title 10, United States Oode. The authority to place perma MENDELJ. DAVIS, nent or temporary ilmprovements on l-amds includes authOrity for sur G. Wrr..I.JAM WHITEHU'RST, veys, admini8tration, overhead, platnning, and supervi8ion incident to BoB WILSON, construction. That authority may be emercised before title to the land ROBIN L. BEARD, is approved wnder section 355 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (40 Managers on the Part of the House. U.S.O. 955), and even though the land i8 held temporar£/;y. The oothor ity to aGflWtre real estate or land includes authority to rna'ke surveys and . to acqu~re land, and interests in land (including temporary us_e}, by gift, purchase, emchange of Government-owned land, or otherwi8e. JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE The managers on the part of the House and Senate at the confer ence on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 12384) to authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes, submit the follow ing joint statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in the accompanying report: LEGISLATION IN CoNFERENCE On May 7, 1976, the House passed H.R. 12384 which l'rovides mili tary construction authorization and related authority m support of the Military Departments, Reserve Components and the Defense De partment during fiscal year 1977. On May 20, 1976, the Senate considered the legislation, amended it by striking out all language after the enacting clause and wrote a new bill. · CoMPARISON oF SENAT.l!l AND HouSE BILLS As passed by the House, H.R. 12384, provided $3,324,264,000 in new authorization. · The bill as passed by the Senate provided $3,289,785,000 in new authorization. SUMMARY OF RESOLUTION OF DIFFERENCES As a result of the conference between the House and Senate on the differences in H.R. 12384~ the conferees agreed to a new adjusted authorization for military construction for fiscal year 1977 m the amount of $3,323,989,000. The Department of Defense and the respective military depart ments had requested a total of $3,368,215,000 for new construction authorization for fiscal year 1977. The action of the conferees therefore reduces the Department's request by $44,226,000 in new authorization. (25) . ' 27 TotaZ authorizatiOn granted, ftgcaZ year 1977 ' . the annual authorization bill regardless of the funding source for Title I (Army) : In thotUan.d8 each type o,f facility required by the military services. The conferees Inside the United States------$419, 837 further direct that this report be submitted to the committees not later Outside the United .States------164,661 than February 1, 1977. Subtotal ------584,498 Title II (Navy) : NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY Inside the United States------481,580 Outside the United States------19, 356 For the past several years the Congress has expressed concern over the security of nuclear weapons. Last year Congress authorized over Subtotal------500,936 $56 million for this purpose and this bill contains $117,746,000. · In its report on this bill, the Senate directed the Department of Title III .(Air Force) : Inside the United States------679, 759 Defense to report to the Armed Services Committees of the Senate Outside the Unite.d ·states------56, 650 and House of Representatives on a bimonthly basis for the next two years on upgrading nuclear weapons storage sites. The House argued Subtotal ------736,409 that a bimonthly report requirement was too frequent to be meaning .Title .IV (Defense agencies)------32, 946 ful and suggested that the report be submitted semiannually, and the Title V (military family housing)------.1, 304, 523 Senate agreed. The conferees again expressed serious concern with this situation and insisted that upgrading the physical security of Title VII (Reserve Forces facilities) : our nuclear storage facilities be given top priority by the Department. Army Nationallleserve ______Guard------_ 54,745 44,459 Naval and Marine Corps Reserve------ 21,800 TITLE I-ARMY Air National Guard------ 33,900 Air Force lleserve------.----- 9,773 The House approved new construction authorization in the amount ---- of $584,245,000 for the Department of the Army. The Senate ap Subtotal ------·----- 164,677 proved new construction authorization for the Army in the amount Total granted by titles I,.II, Iii, IV, V, and VIL ______3, 323,989 of $587,913,000. The con,ferees agreed to a new total for Title I in the amount of $584,498,000, which is $253,000 above the House figure GENERAL TOPICS and $3,415,000 below the Senate figure. Among the major items con sidered in conference and acted on by the conferees were the following: J:>ROJl!lOTS ELIMINATED BY THE CONFERENCE FORT CAMPBELL, KY.-NEW HOSPITAL, $58,200,000 To maintain budgetary ceilings the conferees were required to ~lim inate several high priority projects that had been added by either The Senate, in considering the Fort Campbell hospital, took note of the House or the Senate. However, these projects are badly needed the excellent work done by the House in reducing the budget request and the conferees will expect them to be revalidated and included ~n for the Fort Campbell hospital from $70,900,000 to $58,200,000. How the fiscal ·year 1978 request by the Department of Defense If ever, the Senate bill had increased the authorization by $3,600,000 appropriate. over the House-reduced figure of $58,200,000 to allow for certain as NONAPPROPRIATED . FUND CONSTRUCTION pects of construction to be incorporated in the finished facility namely, seismic strengthening of the hospital core and the inclusion The conferees noted that during the first half of fiscal year 1976 of space for a worldwide, medical data handling system. House con approximately $45 million in non-appropriated funds was spent !or ferees remained adamant that the authorization would not be in construction. In some instances non-appropriated funds were bemg creased above $58,200,000 but agreed that the construction aspects of used for construction at bases now scheduled for closure or significant concern to the Senate could be included in the scope of work if the reductions. They also noted several instances of ;facilities being built total authority was not increased beyond the project ceiling, taking with appropriated funds by one of the services, while another servi~e into consideration the cost variation provisions of the bill. used non-appropriated funds. The conferees were concerned .that this inconsistent, dual-funding approach could circumvent the will of the FORT BLISS, TEX.-HOSPITAL ANNEX, $3,856,000 Congress in the construction of projects at military bases. ':fhe ~ouse conferees endorsed the language of the Senate report whiCh directs The House committee added $12,755,000 to the bill for a new hos the Department of Defense to examine all non-appropriated fund pital annex to the William Beaumont Army Medical Center at Fort construction and to report back to the Armed Services Committees Bliss, Texas. The Senate did not provide any authorization for this of both Houses on the desirability of authorizing all construction in project. During a thorough discussion in conference on this matter, • 28 ~enate conferees agreed to the need for the annex facility and asso Ciated upgrading of utilities of the existing medical center. However, prudently use the earryover from the $7 million authorized in fiscal they felt that since the project could not possibly be designed and put year 1976 and the $11 million requested in this authorization. u;tder cons~ructio~ ~fore t~e end o~ fiscal year 1977, it should be con After much discussion, House conferees very reluctantly receded sidered a high pnor1ty proJect for mclusion in the Army's fiscal year upon receiving convincing arguments from the Senate conference that 1978 military construction program. The matter was resolved when State and local government applications for community impact assist the S~na;te agree_d to authorize $3,356,000 to upgrade the utilities in ance might require the full $11,000,000 requested. the existmg hospital to meet current safety requirements. Considering the $45,000,000 "bookkeeping" reduction in cumulative authorization, the full $11,000,000 authorization for community im U.S. ARMY SECURITY AGENCY~· KOREA-:BAR.ltACKS, $1,849,000 pact assistance, and the House reductions of $3,194,000 agreed to in conference by the Senate, the total authorized for Trident facilities in The Army requested $1,849,000 to construct permanent enlisted fiscal year 1977 is $92,278,000. men's barracks for the U.S. Army Security Agency at a location in Korea. The House approved the full request but the Senate denied the V.ABIOUS LOCATION&-NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY, $37,075,000 project on the basis that the barracks should be of the relocatable The Senate added $7,375,000 for nuclear weapons security and the type, rather than permanent construction, to be consistent with other House added $1,920,000. The conferees looked .at these differences and, barracks authorized for Korea. House conferees concurred and con after discussing the great importance of improving nuclear weapons vinced Senate conferees _to. agree to provide authorization for this security, the House receded and agreed to the Senate figure, bringing project on the condition that relocatable structul'es" be used to provide the total authorized for the Navy for this purpose to $37,075,000. the housing requested in this proj.ect. TITLE III-AIR FORCE TITLE II-NAVY The House approved $731,059,000 in new construction authorization The House approved $502,818,000 in new construction authorization for the Department of the Air Force. The Senate approved $744,- for the Department of the Navy. The Senate approved $500,815,000. 516,000. Th~ conferee~ agreed to a new total in the amount of $500,936,000. 1;'he ~nferees agreed to a new total in the amount of $736,409,000, ThiS amount IS $1,832,000 below the House figure and $121,000 above which IS $8,107,000 below the Senate figure and $5,350,000 above the the Senate figure. . House figure. Among the major items considered in the conference were the Among the major items resolved in conference was the following: following: TRIDENT FACILITIES, $92,278,000 HILL Am FORCE BASE, UTAH-MINUTEMAN SUPPORT FACILITY, $5,400,000 The Navy's request for the fourth phase of the Trident facility was $140,472,000. .. ' . . . The Senate bill included $5,400,000 for the construction of Minute man storage and maintenance facilities at Hill Air Force Base as re . The Sena;te t;educed the requ~t ~y $45,000,000 to bring cummula q~ested by the ~resid~nt in a J:>udget amendment and in consonance tlv~ authon~ations a~d appropriatiOns ~ore nearly into agreement. This reductiOn was Simply a "bookkeepmg" move and was not in w1th the. Senate mclus10n of Mmuteman production funds in the Sen tended to indicate that the Senate had changed its position about the ate versiOn of the fiscal year 1977 Defense Procurement Bill. The necessity or timing required for constructing the facility. The Senate House conferees argued that inclusion of these funds in the final con approved all projects proposed for the Trident Support Site includ- struction bill was questionable since the House had not acted on the inp: $11,000,000 for Comm · Impact Assistance. ' budget amendment and no conference position has been taken on the The House reduced the aut rization for bachelor enlisted quarters fiscal year 1977 pefense Procurement bill. The conferees agreed to delete the authonty for funds with the understanding that if Minute ~nd bachelor officer quarters, and receded in conference on these· two Items. The HLoring Air Force Base, Maine deterioration caused by the lack of sufficient maintenance· funds. Ac Webb Air Force Base, Texas cordinglyr .the. confer~es adopted the Senate positi~n and ~iverted Richards Gebaur Air Force Base. Missouri $25,000,000 from the Improvement program for family housmg and Defense Agency: Defense Clothing ·Factory, Philadelphia, Pennsyl- added that sum to the housing maintenance program. vania · Conferees felt that. in future years adequate amounts should be The conferees are confident that. this provision will improve base bud~ted in. the operatio!l and maintenance por!-ion of the mi!it~ry realinement procedures. It does not represent a violation of the prin family housm~ program m order not- to further mcrease the existmg ciple of the separation of powers. It bears no resemblance to the highly backlog of mamtenance of military family housing. restrictive provision in the fisc~l year 1966 Military Construction Authorization Bill that resulted in President Johnson's veto. Despite TITLE VI-GENERAL PROVISIONS the . Defense Department's opposition, the conferees are convinced that Section 612 is good legislation that can only benefit all concerned. The Senate included in its bill Section 608 which expressed the . ,, ',' approval of Cl:!ngressto the planned establ~shment of a naval and marj. time museum m Charleston, South Carolina. The House measure d1d TITLErVII-GUARD AND RE.SERVE FORCES not contain such language. However,.House conferees accepted the The House approved $164,67'7,000 in new construction authorization Senate provision when it was fully explained that this language does for the Guard and Reserve Forces. The Senate approved $127,072,000. not authorize any federal funds for the proposed museum. · . . The conferees agreed to a new total in the amount of $164:,677,000, The :primary intent of Secti(m; 612, as-finally approved by the con~ which is $37,605,000 above the Senate figure, and is the same as the ferees, IS to put into law a procedure and a, schedule whereby the De House figure. pa!iment of ~efense can effect base realinements. The ~o!lferees were . Significant factors in increasing the authorization were the growing qmte emphatic that the record. must be clear that decisions, on base ·· emphasis on training and combat readiness, and the Total Forces realinements are made by the Departmenp of_Defense.an~ not by C~m~ Concept that requires adequate facilities to support new missions and gress, but that Congress does have a constitutional obhgatlon to rev1ew equipment being assigned. the justification for such decision just as the Congress·reviews the During the discussion of the difference in the amounts authorized, justification for any Department of Defense budget request. there was unanimous agreement that the requested authorization con- 32 tained only minimal essential items and that additional authorization should be provided. Accordingly, the Senate conferees agreed to the additional authorization of $37,605,000, making a tot.fW authorization of $164,677,000. . · . STUART SYMINGTON, JOHN c. STENNIS, HENRY M. JACKSON, HowARD W. CANNON, ~Y F. BYRD, Jr., PATRICK J. LEAHY, JoHN ToWER, · STROM THURMOND, . BARRY GolDWATER, M anagera on the Part of the Senate. RicHARD H. !cHoRD, MELVIN PRICE, ' WM. J. RANDALL, CHARLEs N. WILSoN, RICHARD c. WHITE, JACK BRINKLEY, MENDEL J. DAVIS, . G. WILLIAM WHITEHURST, BoB WILsoN, RoBIN L. BEARD, M anagera on the Part of the H O'U8e. 0 94TH CoNGREss} HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { furoRT 2dSession No. 94-1243 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION, FISCAL YEAR, 1977 JUNE 9, 1976.-0rdered to be printed Mr. !cHoRD, from the committee of conference, submitted the following CONFERENCE REPORT [To accompany H.R. 12384] The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of .the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. .12384) to authorize certain construction at military installations and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows : In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted- by the Senate amend~ ment insert the following: TITLE I-ARMY 8Ec.101. The Secretary of the Army may establish 01' develop mili tary installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, converting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public w01'ks, including land acquisition, s~te preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, for the following acquisition and construction: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $33,293,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $65,387,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $10,589,000. Fort Drum, New York $7,114,000. FO'I't Greely, Alaska, $2,854,000. Fort Hood, Tewas, $20,033,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $2,114,000. _ Fort George G. Meade,lllaryland,$1,1.4,2,000. 117.006 0 Attached document was not scanned because it is duplicated elsewhere in the document Calendar No. 814 fl4'l'H CoNGREss l. SENATE REPORT ~d Session f { No. 94-856 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION, FISCAL YEAR 1977 MAY 13, 1976.-0rdered to be printed Mr. SYMINGTON, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the following _,...... ,.;--,) / 'fORb ' ~· <' REPORT ~ ~ [To accompany S. 3434] , \v\'" :;:j- The Committee on Armed Services, having had under consid~r~fi~ the question of military construction authorization, reports the fol lowing bill ( S. 3434), to authorize certain construction at mHitary installations, and for other purposes, and recommends that it do pass. PuRPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of this bill is to provide construction and other related authonty for the military departments, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, within and outside the United States and in title VII authority for construction of facilities for the Reserve components, in the total amount of $3,289,785,000. FoRM OF CoMMITTEE AcTION The bill on which the committee heard its hearings isS. 2967. The companion bill as passed by the House of Representatives is H.R. 12384. Subsequent to the submission of the bill to the Congress; and in some instances after the hearings had been completed, amend ments were requested by the Department of Defense. These changes, together with those recommended by the committee, made it desirable to report an original bill. 57-010-76-1 2 3 Total authorizations granted, fiscal year 1971 SuMMARY oF CoMMITTEE AcTION Title I (Army): $425,101,000 The Depa1tment of Defense requested $3,368,215,000 in new author Inside the United States------, 8 2,. ity to construct 488 different projects at 311 different installations, cov Outside the United States------162 1 000 ering 48 states and 16 foreign countries~ and to operate and maintain 587,913,000 Subtotal ------the current inventory of military family no using. The Subcommittoo on Military Construction heard testimony from Title II (Navy): 481 4-90 000 Department of Defense officials and from Service re.Presentatives in Inside the United States------' ' Outside the United States------__1_9._3_5_6_, 000 _ support of the request on six different occasions includmg special hear in on the Fort Hood land acquisition and nuclear weapons security. 815,000 Subtotal ------~-'------===== request contains $437,000,000 for a jet engine test faciilty, which is the largest single facility to come before the committee, and special Title III (Air Force) : · 000 Inside the United States------687, 86h, testimony from technical experts outside the Department of Defense Outside the United States------__56_,_6_5_0_, oo_o was received and is discussed in more detail later in the report. After carefully reviewing each individual project in the request, the Subtotal ------,.,------===5=1=6=,0=00= committee eliminated some projects which it felt were of que..;;;tionable Ti tie IV (Defense Agencies)------24, 946, OOO validity or could be deferred without injury to th~ overall program. In addition the committee has recommended adding more projects than Title V (Military Family Housing)------=1='===52=3='=000= usual to keep the overall authorization total near that requested by Title VII (Reserve Forces facilities) : · the Department of Defense because of the beneficial impact of these Army National Guard------40,817, 000 construction programs on the construction industry and the economy Arrnv Reserve------3!·~&g·ggg in general. Projects recommended to be added by the committee are Naval and Marine Corps Reserve------la, , priority requirements to the Services and are sufficiently advanced in Air National Guard------24,3oo,oog Air Force Reserve------___9,_000 __ ' o_o_ design to enable them to be put UJ:lder contract quickly. The following table summarizes committee actions : 127,072,000 Total ------FINAL COMMITTEE ACTION Grand total granted' by titles I, II, III, IV, V, and VIL--- 3, 289, 785, 000 Bill submitted Committee BACKGROUND Authorizations to Congress action Difference The following summa~y i~ set forth to p~nnit a review of all ~li tarv construction authorization for the. active forces from ?seal :year li~ii~;======::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,,i!: ~!~: ~~ :m: nt 888 -~t!: ~!i: ~~ 1948 through this bill. The summary 1s based upon the h1ll as sub- ies title IV) .. ---·------·------·····---· 64, 650,000 24, 946, 000 -39,704, 000 title V>----·------·------•·----- 1, 303,847,000 1, 304,523,000 +1, 676, 000 mitt~d to the Congress: (title VII)._ .. __ ...... __ ••••• -----· • __1_21_, o_7_2._ooo..,...._l_t_7,_07_2_, o_oo~ ____o STATUS OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ACTIVE FORCES {ACTUAL AND PROJECTED) Tobll ••••••••••..••••••• ------· ---····cc .. -·------. I 3, 3, 289, 785, 000 -78, 430, 0(0. FISCAL YEARS 1948 THROUGH 1977 lin millions of dollars) • Does not include $5,400,000 budget amendment for Minuteman. • Include$ $5,400,000 liudget amendment for Minuteman. Army Navy Force Total 10,599 21,410 -1, 192 -3,398 -9,282 -17,891 -51 -79 of 1 Includes $24,500,000 from Procurement Ammuniti?n, _Armv. Appropriation to finance authorization for ammunition facilities included in the pr~posed fiscal year 1977 authonzat10n bill. • Unfunded NATO Authonzallon. .. 5 4· Completion date (actual or estimated) 5. Remarks (include the reason f h I ous r~I?ort and other comments as a~~~~~ria::res from the previ- n additiOn, the committee inquired t th . of the storage of chemical warfar as o e status of the security advised that a security upgrade pe a~e~ts. The bD~partme~t of Defense SPECIAL INTEREST SuBJECTS quest for authorit. t a d ro,Ia~ was emg studied and are- sites would probablyob~Pf;~h: \rs~:r;:~~Y ~~ chel.itcal agent stor~ge Nuclear and chemical weapons security request. The committee does not want th. 1 . 8 mi I ary constructiOn For the past several years the Congress has expressed its concern nuclear weapons security proooram a. dIS progra!ll to lag as has the over the security of nuclear weapons. Last year Congress authorized h · o • n a narrative progress rt on c emica1 weapons security should be added to the b. . , tl~epo and appropriated over $50 million to be used to upgrade the physical port on nuclear weapons storage required above. I-mon 1 y re- security aspects of nuclear weapons stotage sites. This committee in di~c.ussing nuclear 'yeapons sec~rity in it.s report on the fiscal year 1976 Aeropropulsion systems test facility (ASTF) ~hhtary ConstructiOn Authorization Bill stated: tionThe bill largest is the single aer proJ· ect ter t o b e requested m . a military . construc- The Committee's main concern is that the Department is not 437 000 000 t b opropu sion systems test :facility at a cost of moving fast enough in this area. The Committee feels that it has $ ' ' o e constructed at the A · ld E · . taken too long to develop plans and criteria and that definitive ment Center near Tullahoma Tennessee rnhl h . ngmee.rmg. Dev~lop- action is long overdue.... The Committee will watch this pro quest. The committee reco!!Ilizes h ' w . c IS co11tamed m this re- gram closely and insists that it be given top priority in execution. project in its title of the blll has ~e~!r~~; t~i!r·~ 6n absorbing t~is The committee examined this subject in great detail again during for other neces~ary constnJ.ction. I u get authority hearings on the fiscal year 1977 request which includes over $110 The ASTF IS one of t.hree vitally , . · d · million to continue this program and Senator Leahy chaired a separate signed to keep the United States in tJh I;qmf~ natiOnal :faci~ities de- executive session devoted to the subject. Although the committee is nology for the remainder of this cent e o~hiOnt} of, aeronau~l.c~l tech aware of the complexity and problems associated with the develop for tes~ing airframes at supersoni ury. d e ot lei two faCihb~s, one transomc speeds are t b b .l b c spe~ s and one for testmg at ment and implementation of new security criteria for the stomge of 0 these weapons, the committee must express its disappointment with ~dmini?tration. The ASTF ~Ill th:!ll;tlOnal Ae:r:onautic~ and Space simnlatmg speeds and altitudes that It t~h.e testdil!g of Jet engmes, the rate of progress which has been achieved to date. tion of military and com,mercia' l !I-re anft ICipate m the next genera- The committee is disturbed that it has been nearly four years since . aircra . the incident at the Munich Olympics which triggered the program Tl1e committee thoro o-hl · · and, despite evidence inttoduced during testimony that some correc facility, and testimony ~as lak~;e~~~at4 t~e require~ent for this tive construction has been undertaken during the past two years and the Department of Defense but 1 ' on y rom the Air Force and is ongoing now, the major ;Physical upgrading of facilities has not Founda~ion. and industry 'repr:se~f:tim NA~A, the.Nation!l-1 Scie1_1ce started; the committee is disturbed that it took the Department of P.r<.>duction business. 'Dhere was unan· ves w odm Ill the Jet engme Cihty-in fact, the committee has be Imoubl en . orsement for the fa Defense nearly two years to develop criteria for the upgrade of fa tion to the p,ropo~l. en una e to unoover any opposi- cilities; the committee is disturbed that negotiations with NATO officials to get the criteria a.ccepted by NATO, so that the United The committee 81pplauds the Air F . · k. · States can be reimbursed for the cost of construction in Europe thorization for the facility in one y orceAlt~ l}f for complete au- through the NATO Infrastructure program is just now getting take several yea,rs, the committee . ea:. oug oonstruc~ion will o.utset will permit the completion ~~fcfhvfc~~tth!lt !~ll authonty at.the underway.The committee again calls on the Department of Defense to use every tunc at the minimum cost. . e am I y m Ulte shortest possible reasonable resource at its command to Pxecute this program expedi Base Realinements tiously. The committee agreed to add funding authoriz·ation of $7,375,- The committee is concerned th t 000 to Title II of the fiscal year 1977 request to accelerate the Navy's Department of Defense to effect b a current prO?eq~Ires used by the nuclear weapon's security program. are no~ adequately defined. N earl~ee closubs or jrgmficant reductions In order to permit the Congress to stay abreast of the progress of made 'Ill recent years has been th ve;ry ase .c osure announcement this program, beginning immediately the Department of Defense is a~l' The committee recognized that such a deliberate process, while ap so that everyone affected by a potential ac~ion can plan accordin~ly, propriate during time of peace, was not tolerable in time of national (2) it insures that all vartleS concerned With suc_h a proposed ll;.C~lon emergency and has given the President the authority to override the Will have the opportunity to be heard and to oontr~bute to the decision provisions, if he deems it necessary. making proooss, an~ _(3). it affor~s .the opport~mt:y for_ the Congress to influence the deciSIOn 1f there 1s madequate JUStificatiOn. The com Fort Hood l.and acquisition mittee emphasizes that·Section 612 is not a means ~or .the Congress The acquisition of private land by the 'Federal Government for mili to approve or disapprQve of every base closure or sigmfica:t;tt. reduc tary purposes is a serious and emotional issue. The committee took tion; to the contrary, the committee :feels strongly that decisions on special interest in the Fort Hood land acquisition proposal and ex base realignments are properly made ~y.the DeP.artment of pefe~~ amined the request in great depth. Special hearings were chaired by Section 612 simpy formalizes the dOOision-mak!ng. process ;tns~nn,..., Senator Tower for the Military Construction Subcominittec at the site that the Congress has the opportunity to exercise 1ts ConstitutiOnal to permit all interested parties the chance to be heard. The Army's obligation with regard .to, "raising a~d. s:upport.ing" the armed f.orces. case, simply stated, is that Fort Hood does not now have the necessary The provision first places a prohibition on (1) .any base closure, rea! estate to adequat~ly train two armored divisions. The opposition, (2) any significant reduction, defined as a r~?-?tion of more than wh1ch presente~ a·wnted front, held tha,t the Army had failed to con 250 civilian employees ot 50 percent .of the CIVih~n fo~ employed duct the n~cessary ~tudy to justify th~ requirement for the land and as of the end of the fiscal year precedmg the year m which Congr.ess that from mformat10n they could obtam, the neec;l was not.j ustified. is notified that such action is a "oa~di~ate", and (3). any oo~structiphed. The comm2~ before several congressional committees and admitted that a form~l tee expects the De}>a'rtmeht of Defense to respqnd to ev~rJ. reason~me documented .st).lJy justifying ~he acquisition .. 10 11 ponents of the facility. The action by the committee in reducing au $45,000,000. The committee learned d · · h . thority in this bill by $45,000,000 is not intended to affect progress, types. of facilties built with ~ppro ri Ya~ lts ear;ngs tha.t many but to bring authority and dollars more nearly into agreement. gresswn~I approval are also bnil· 'lh a e unds ';'hiCh reqmre con The discussion in the preceding paragraphs does not address Tri not reqmre congressional approv~TI non-appropnated funds and do dent Community Impact .Assistance funds. The Navy was authorized The following are t f f ·i· . . $7,000,000 in impfl.Ct ·assistance funds in :fiscal year 1976 and requested ihat have used both ap~¥~ps ~ t ~CII~es bmlt over ~he last three years $11,000,000 for fiscal year 1971. Although obligations of :fiscal year Gymnasiums. 1 Ia e an non-appropnated funds: 1976 funds were less than $1,000,000 at the time testimony was taken, F~bmil.';'/Communit.y Service Centers the Navy was quite insistent that the authorization requested for fiscal L1 rar1es. · · year 1977 was required because the full impact of the Trident facility ExcJ1ange Facilities. will be felt beginning in .fiseal year 1971 and preliminary estimates of Enhsted Service Clubs. funding requirements coincide with the requested amounts. The com mittee supports the concept of impact assistance and strongly endorses ~pen Mes~es. (Clubs) for Lower Grade Enlisted the full $11,000,000 requested :for fiscal year 1977. Offl~~~~o~!~!~~s~~(C~~J~n Messes (Clubs). Design Bahed'liti!ng Arts and. Crafts Hobby Shops. Automotive Hobby Shops. The committee has taken a close look at the status of design of each Theaters. of the projects in this year's request. Several projects have been de ferred because design either had not started or was only just under Gener~l E4ucation Development Centers way. The committee is reluctant to authorize facilities for which de CommiSsaries 1 • sign is not substantially complete for two reasons: (1) lack of design Th3 Committee is .concern d tl t th' d . out fulJ .Congressional appr~val ~~rior I:o ;hal fb{~dm£5 approach with means that cost estimates are very tenuous and the chances of over- or lead to mconsistencies on the use of , eo Iga:twn of funds may under-authorization are high; and (2) the time taken to complete de C~ngress might disapprove the use of non-appz:opnated :funds where sig-n and design reviews will probahly mean tha.t the nroiect cannot be mlttee would Jike for the De t . appropriated funds. The com put under construction durin?: the fiscal year for which it is nuthorized. tion ~nd report hack to bothpar me_~~of Defe~se to exan:ine this ques- The committee will insist that desig-n of nrojf'cts recnwsted in :future 1. ,rhe desirabilit of auth~rlr:l 0' es on Aimed ~ervlces as to: bills be well underway unless special justification is submitted. fundmg source, in th~ annual authoX::.~ ~.ll cbl;trucdtlon, regardless o:f 1011 1 B aahelor hO'U8ing design 2. the feasibility of desi natin ~ ,a 1 an I or of facility required bv th/Dep .rgt a sutlgle fundmg source for each type The committee received testimony concerning the design of bachelor • a men. housing. At the present t1me each of the Services ·are permitted to Energy conse'J'Vation design their own bachelor housing eonstrained only by two criteria: The Committee is pleased with th D , (1) the net living area per enlisted man cannot exceed 90 square feet conservation related to b 'I i. e . ep~rtment s efforts in energy (or 72 square feet for a trainee); and (2) the cost per square foot for like to encourage the De . ~t~ln~1 constr~ctiOn. The committee would the total facility cannot exceed a certain limit specified in the annual initiatives especially in lhe ~r~~1 to£ coijtmue new energy conservation authorization bill. As a result the Services today are using twelve and control systems and the us ~~ o /~ a~ e~ergy, energy monitoring different designs :for bachelor enlisted quarters and the total cost per The committee n~t d 1 . e . _re Ul:ie-tlenved fuels. design occupant ranges from $4:,500 to $7,700. The committee is con the E?e.r~fc~s in the s~la; :.1~;.ve:·~;y of effort bei~g applied by_ all of cerned that the criteria currently used to constrain Service designs are proVIsiOn m this year's bill wlfch }i· ~he ?mmmtte~ has retruned a not sufficiently restrictive to prevent incongruities between the Serv percent to accommodate solar s t a ow., coots to be mcreased by ten ices. The committee is not suggesting or requiring that the Services all a pplic.ations. The committee w!u~Jli~ a£ a zaea~ to encOUl"age solar build the same, architecturally sterile facility, but it appears that more ~nent Its solar eneray proaram i e or . le epartment to docu standardization might be cost effective and eliminate the inconsisten m. ~xamining £utu~e req~ests ~~ome detdll so tJlat .the committee, cies that now exist between the Services. The committee would like for utility of solar systems for ne'" f' a 'I't'ma1 re etermmahons as to the Tl A. F ., c1 1 Ies. The Department of Defense to examine this situation and report to le lr orce advised the committe f th , . the Armed Services Committees of the House o:f Representatives and refl!se-derived fuel at \VriO'ht-Patt A_? p e1r expenment with the Senate on the advisability of increased standardization of the de perl111ent, the Air Force UR~d comb er~on lr orce Base. In this ex sirn of both enlisted and ofT'i~·er hwlwlor. ~'nnrtf'rs. dried, and pelletized and had mix!Jt~k~e feflse ~hat had been sorted, Non-appropriated .f1md ('O"lsfrw:tion of coal and the combined fuels wer IS dute fiwitJI az: equ::I amount e use o re mam boilers. The This committee does not now authorize constrw·tion that the Rf'rY 1 Future bullding of commissar t l('CS ~cc()mp1ish 'lith no11-appropriated funds. ,For the first half of ~~ 7~ommissa~y store patrons, s1lC: fli:SP!:!s~~~ ~f!~ei States will be from funds provided fiscqJ ycnr J076 non-a:1prQ;n·intcrl fund ('onstrnrtion .totn llf-cl nearly f~cli~~~ttitt~~l~~! t~p~~~fdli~~e~n~~J~~~f8~o!n~rls{i~~f~:ft~~~! 1 ~.;l:J ~~etli~:! renovated througb may continue S,R, 85{3.-2 fu~ds ;;~~~~~~~~n:f:'r!~~g;!~~.es t~P~~vio~;~u~i~f~J .. 12 . :f h t fficiency (as compared to a coi_n- result was no appreciable loss o . ~a e tal effects on the boiler or Its parable volume o:f coal) ,dno ~et~~me~:f pollutants emitted :from the com onents and a marke re uc lOll ra es the Air Force to pur smoke stack. The commit~ee strongly e~~~d c~lls on the o~h~r Servi?es sue their program at W:fngDhtfPatte[sonctively pursue thlS mnovatlve TITLE I -ARMY and the Department o e ense o concept. Request Authorized Real estate acquisition reqtwsts t cc uisitions requested by the There is set :forth below th_e real esta he a flthese requests is covered Inside the United States ...... $451,839,000 $425, 101,000 . ttee actwn on eac o Outside the United States ...... __ ...... 164, 661, 000 162,812, 000 Department. C,ommi TotaL ...... 616,500,000 587,913,000 el"ewhere in this report: PROGRAM ~ MILITARY CONSTRUCTION REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS (NEW AUTHORIZATIONS) FISCAL YEAR 1977 (Dollar amounts in thousands( SmiMARY OF PROGRAM Total Fee intere$t Lesser interest Army witnesses testified that the Army program continues to place Estimated emphasis on facilities of direct benefit to the soldier, as well as Estimated Estimated Acres cost Acres cost Acres cost on energy conservation, pollution abatement and nuclear weapons Military department and location 59,300.0 $36,500 security. $36,500 0 0 59,300.0 600 About 40 percent o:f the Army program, excluding NATO Infra Army: Fort Hood, TeX------0 6,084.0 600 0 118,000.0 3, 500 structure, is :for soldier oriented projects such as bachelor housing and tlavy· c 1'11 t6 084.0 3, 500 0 0 Naval Air station, China Lake, .a • • •• •• --- 11 ~11~8-~00~0~.o~-~~-_:~-~.-lli.'OMT-4.ioo Naval Air station, El Centro, Cahf. .•.• ------_ ' 124,084.0 4,100 dining accommodations, medical and dental facilities, and community 4,100 0 0 Tota'------~12;!;4,~08~4~.0~~~=~~=~=~===:=:: support facilities. This included a request :for 7,373 new, and the mod 47,000.0 7, 500 ernization o:f 1,684, bachelor enlisted spaces. The request is predomi 0 0 500 47,000.0 7, 500 0 35.4 Air F~~~;rcoast Range, N.~------35.4 500 0 nantly for the lower rated personnel with 78 percent :for E2-E4 per 2, 217 $839 1, 500.0 sonnel, 18 percent for E5-E6 personnel, and only 4 percent for higher ~il:ar ~~~~~~a~~~s ~~~ii8tiiii8 ·use"ioiies ·(s· 680_0 1, 378 820 10,217 tocations) 1----··------·-··------·_ _3_~~~~~~~-~~48.535:4-lD.iv839 48, 535.4 rated personnel. 315 bachelor officer quarters were also requested. 9, 378 820 The Army continued to emphasize nuclear weapons security both in TotaL ------~4~7,~7~15~.4~~~=~~=~~m:m:4!~ 839 231,919.4 50,817 231,099.4 49,978 820 the continental United States and overseas. This project will provide Grand totaL .. ------.. the urgently needed security measures for nuclear weapons. . . 6 res authorization for exchange only. t 1 868 acres authorization and appropna~·~-~-n4,H: 000 acres authorization lor exchange only. The Army also continued the efforts to provide facilities that will ' 74,ooo. acres authonzatton and appropna ' . ' Amount Ease Amount support the stationing of a 16 Division Army. The total construction s 8 1ocat10ns: Fee $167,000 0 70 284 178,000 effort requested for the Army's new division posts, Forts Ord, Polk & 0 262 79,000 and Stewart, is $104,058,000. 3. 0 $101, 00& 110 58 000 ~~~:i:~~s~~tiC.~~~~~~~:::::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 357, 00& Dover AfBI Del...... ------0 .293, 000 94 Continued emphasis is placed on the construction o:f maintenance Scott AFB, 11 ...... ------. 173 • 189 000 0 McConnell AFB, Kans ...... ------·::::::. 126. 0 606' 000 0 0 facilities which are directly related to the Army's readiness posture. Barksdale AFB, La .... ------... . 3 0 0 This is the first year that ammunition facilities at government Offutt AFB, Nebr------·:::::::::: .. .. lt& 189: 000 Pope AFB, N.C ...... owned, contractor-operated Army ammunition plants have been in cluded in the request. A total of $24,500,000 has been requested. The rsquest :for air and water pollution abatement projects was $89,061,000 with the amounts for each, $11,228,000 and $77,833,000, re spectively. This is approximately 17 percent of the Title I request, excluding NATO Infrastructure. For air pollution abatement, one project will provide an incinerator cluster for disposal of chemically contaminated wastes and one proj ect will consolidate and process emissions :from TNT production Hnes. (18) • 15 14 FACILITY CLASS SUMMARY . ater ollution abatement projects [In thousands of dollars! The Title I requefstthm~lu~~~'fp;ojectspas follows: Army Committee with a breakdown o e :YP Description request approved Number of Amount projects (thousands) 4,043 4, 043 6,799 3,874 Facilities description 1 $531 53,334 62,701 3 13,974 10,736 · of ship generated wastes .• ------~:~:: 19 3 , I~ 7, 521 7, 521 Snore facilities for !l::fo~e:t~atment systems •• ------·:::::::::::::::::..... 1 43,806 74,263 72,914 Samtary sewage co. · ewer systems •.. ------____2__ --::-;:;:; 500 500 1 1 1 Connections to mun c '\~ s or treatmentsystems •• ------23 77,833 140,574 148,779 lndustnal_waste co 1 1ec 1or ------···--· (133, 203) (138, 544) (7, 371) (10, 225) Total .• -•• ------6,392 6,392 89,061 89,061 ·•.. . . ,.., 00 or 10 percent of Title ~'. ~x- (11. 228) (11, 228) F . Energy Conservation, $51,541,0 ted to provide faclhties (17, 833) (77, 833) Energy ______..... ___ ...... _____ . ______.. ----...... __ .• ___ ••••• -- .... ----. 51, 571 49,394 di~w N ..c{"TO 'Infra~tructure, _wa~ . requ~he rorrram, which is u. 15 51,968 51,968 ~:/e:~~~~~~~-~~c_u!~~--:~ ~= :::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 36,500 0 ~~~t will assist _in n!eetmg thec~~~~~;~i~~' th/ougll a si:x; ;y:ear de~tt. NATO infrastructure •• _. _____ •.•••••• _•. ___ • _____ . _... __ . ___ ---•.. _••. -- ---··-- __ su.ooo 80,000 erernt reduction m energy . ~ars should average 48 mllhon o a~s Total.. ______._ ... ___ • ___ •. ______. ______.. __ " ___ ...... _... _--·. 616,500 587,913 Jfhe nroo-ram for the n~xt fotur y t. of $52 million will save app_ roxl- ~" "' Tl · :year's 1nves men · t t · 7 year" • Includes ammunition facilities. per year. ~18, 11 f nd return the inves ~en m 0 b Uok mately $7 mllhon ann:ua l}d a 33 energy conservation proJects ro en The Title I request me u es U.S. ARMY FoRCES CoMMAND (FORSCOM) down by type as follows: Number of Amount The mission of FORSCOM is command of United States Army projects (thousands) Forces, Readiness Command, Continental United States Armies and facilities description all assigned Active Army and Army Reserve troops in CONUS, Ha 6 $9,436 3,104 waii, Alaska, Panama, Puerto Rico and the Vir~in Islands. FORS Central moni~Gri~g andd co.nt~n~::rW~g-systemsmodiifcatfon:: ======:::: ===~:~: 1~ 25,031 COM also supervises the training of the Army National Guard. Heatin~ ventilation an. a1r· . ------·------··--···· 2 431 lnsulatton and storm wm~ows ...... ------·---··············· 1 11,398 The request was $288,616,000 for 41 projects at 12 installations. The l. hting systems converstons .. ------··------1 560 s:ilers and boiler pla~t Improvements ..... ------::::::...... 3 1, 383 request includes $21,427,000 and $10,223,000 for 10 water pollution tl at reoovery industrial process ...... ------·------·--······--··--·-~-- 1 228 abatement and eight energy conservation projects respectively. o~her building imrrovements .. -·-·--·---·--·-::: .... __ ...... ------·------;;-;.;;- Improve eletlrica system...... ------······---- 33 51,571 The significant projects included in the request were: a barracks TGtaL ...... ----··------:.::.:::.::.:=.::.::::.::.::.:..------complex m the amount of $26,742,000 for Fort Bragg, North Carolina; a hospital in the amount of $70,900,000 for Fort Campbell, Kentucky; . d t' on to all projects and the land aequisition in the amount of $36,500,000 for Fort Hood, Texas; a The committee gave c~re~l c~~~~rl~:Jon requested and approved barracks complex in the amount of $35,040,000 for Fort Polk, Louisi following tal;»les sru:_nmanze .. er ~mmand. ana; a barraeks complex in the amount of $33,966,000 for Fort Stew for pach special proJect or ma)O . art/Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia; barracks modernization in. the MAJOR COMMAND SUMMART amount of $8,863,000 for Fort Wainwright, Alaska. The projects reduced, denied or added by the committee follow: Army Committee request approved [In thousands of dollars) 288, 616 261. 436 48 PrGjeet s A y Forces Command.,------·---d------·:::::::::::::::::::::::::.... 4 Installation Amount U i;§~t '~~~ · · rm Traininund Doctnne Cornman ------·:::::. -----··-----·-·---·------. 84, l57 83, 375 ~1 ~~:::;Military OistnctofWar'~~~~{ti.iesscoinmand , _____ ...... ------::::: 24,500 24, soo fort Bragg, N.C ...... ------______Barracks complex ___ ·-·-····--······------1-l, 710 U.S. Army Matenei_Oeve\opmen an ------··------·----·------·::: .. :.. 2, 857 2, ~~1 Dining facility modernization ...... +1,611 fort Campbell, KY------···------U.S. Army hospitaL...... _.~------··------, l-9, 100 Dental clinic ...... ___ .·------·--···---- +1. 705 Ammunitionfaclll\les .... g;~f~J~:::.::::::::::::::::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:::::::: ~.~n 2' m Fort Carson, Colo_ ...... ______••. _••. do ...... ____ ---·-·---·---- ____ ...... +1,922 Fort Field house addition ______.. ------____ .... ___ Various locations, nuclear weapons secunty .... ------4-51-, Greely'rAiaska_ •••••• : •...... __ .. ____ • +2,854 8::-39-:----4;.;2;;-5,-;;1~;;~ Fort Hood, ex ...... ------______land acquisition ...... ____ .... -·------____ ---~- __ -36,500 Total inside the United States .•• ______,...... 13, 13, ~i Dining facility modernization ••• ----·---·------______+1. 251 m Tactical eq_ut_pment shops...... +5,036 Annual trammg facility •• ·-·---· ______• +6, 278 Fort Lewis, Wash ...... ------______Dental clinic .. ____ ------___ ···------_____ .------· +1.900 900 Diaing facility modernization .... ------·------.... . +l. 959 Fort McCoy, Wis ______; ____ Barracks w{dining facility ...... -1,268 rt~~i;::+E ;;+ _f"t!Ci::{W--i-:_"_-_-;_: -:W;':: -;: __k_4 :.:..:~-=-9:-:----;;~-;/-;~;:;: l-2,876 ~~~ ~~~a~~-Ga: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~;;:~~: ~~~~~:~: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: l-2,303 1-htclearweaponssecunty ...... ---- ____ 164,661 162,812 Fort Wainwnght, Alaska ...... Sprinkler system aircraft hangar ______+2,061 _ Total outside the United States_ ...... ------····----· ===16=.=so~87, 913 ' -----~ .. _.. __ ,._ ...... ------.. - 6 Total new authorization------',Partial reduction. Formerly the u.s. Army Materiel Command. • 17 16 U.S. Am.IY MATERIEL DEVELOPMENT AND READINESS CollliAND . h f n wing portions of barracks com- The committee Croject at Pueblo . t Fort Belvoir for the Defense . Army Depot. Project requirements should be reexammed as the Army The committee deferred t~e fhi!ec~ject should be reexamined con is reducing Pueblo Army Depot to an activity status. s~s Mana.gement.Soh~E . . p Sehool. The committee deferred the EMP Simulator Facility at Woodbridge sidering plans to mo~ the ngm~r Research Facility. Project requirements should be reexamined in view MILITARY DisTRICT OF WASHINGTON . . of the announced study regarding Harry Diamond Laboratories. nds the troop units in the Immedl AMMUNITION FACILITIES The commander of MDW co~!!:. responsible for the operation of ate Washington, D.C. a":'ell: a~ . e ·~n The request was $24,500,000 for nine projects at eight installations. the installations un$d~~~7sob~f~:~~ergy conservation projects}.\: CNn;- The significant projects included in the request were; a bag loading The request w.as . : . ' h unt of $1265 000 and Fort c air and assembly facility in the a,mount of $6,758,000 for Indiana Army eron Station, V Irgmia ln t e amo ' ' . Ammunition Plant and a sulfuric acid regeneration facility in the in the amount of $722,000d. . d added by the committee :follow: amount of $15,238,000 for Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant. The projects reduced, eme or · TnousMtds The requested amount was approved. Insta-U~~>tion and pr9}ect ------$1, 265 v ener"'Y conservation------. 't Cameron Station, a., "' 'tte deferred the low priori y f nomy the comm1 e . For reasons o eco ' t' n at Cameron StatiOn. proiect for energy conserva Io S.R. 81>6-----8 • 19 18 u.s. ARMY JAPAN U.S. M!LITARY AcADEMY The mission of the U S A ' The mission of USMA is to instruct and train the Corps of Cadets, :~ ru;;~~ ut\~tratidn) ~Jli~:t:~js f~:S~~~iin a ~se in J a.Pan the members of which will be the future officers of the Regular Army. whenTh needed · operatiOnal plans with a capabili:mfcesY or expansion reqUI~d The request was $2,857,000 for an ener~ conservation project to ilnprove the utility systems at the U.S. :Mihtary Academy, New York. . ~ request was $124,000 for at Okinawa. The requested amoun~ waswater approved. pollution abatement proJ'ect The requested amount was approved. U.S. ARMY HEALTH SERVICES CoM!UND u.s. ARMY SECURITY AGENCY The Health Services Command exercises command over health serv The Commander ASA . ices.for the Army and medical professional education and training for t;:llAY~~~t ~~dtion~ in s~~;~P~fs~~~ofl~l~rf~rming technical in- assignedTh to the Aupportrmy. of those nationai intell'1gence ommanders respollSlbihties .a~~ .in ArmyThe Medical request was Department for $1,352,000 Personnel. for 2 projects at 2 installations. e r~u~st was $4,480 000 for 4 . The projects included in the request were: a water pollution abate Tke Slg~ufic~nt projec~ includJ~O]hts at 3 locations. . ment project in the amount of $244,000 at Fitzsimons Army Medical gra e proJect m the amo t f $ m t e request were a p Center, Colorado; and a research support facility in the amount of m am"'!nt of in Germany $1,108,000 ;at Walter Reed ~rmy Medical Center, W~shin2ton, D.C. .J!h~ $1,849,000'~t 1.,.,.~\~;;{!fljl and':::~ · The proJects reduced, denied or added by the committee ""follow : · proJects reduced denied dd . · .A.mouts.t Installation and project: ' or a ed by the committee follow: Location 1"!7, barracks______Thousand• InstallationWalter Reedatid project: Ar:ro:s Medical· Oenter,· research support facility_;,.<'- __tnous(JtldB) -$1,108 The committee deferred th b ------$1 849 The committee deferred the Research SupJ?Ort Facilities at Walter has .$10,000,000 for 2,356 ba:ra~k~a~ks project at Location 171. K~rea Reed ArmY Medical Center as it appears this project could be com bml-permanen~ barracks are about pa~es m a separate project The tb'"' ConSideration should be .1WIC THoRizATION AcTioNs Su~rMARY OF AU • . k the Title I request of the Army IS A ummary of acbo~s ta en on s db 1 by proJect: tabulate e ow Tl~ousands Installation and project $1 710 TITLE II-NAVY Reductions: b acks compleX------:: 9: 100 Fort Bragg, N.CK a~ s ArmY hospital------::: __ 36, 500 Request Authorized Fort Campbell, Y·• • • uisition ------1, 268 Fort Hood, Tex., land acqks w/diiung faeilltJ------2, 876 Inside the United Statet •••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••• $507,557,000 I $481,459,000 Fort Mc C oy, VVisbarracks barrae compleX------==------2, 303 Outside the United States...... 19,356,000 19,356,000 ~~~ ~~~~a!t·aa., J:rr~~~d=ri:-nere~e-s"Ystems Man~~~~~~ 2, 925 Total •• ·-·····--·····--·······-·-··············-···················-····· 526, 913, 000 500, SUi, 000 Fort Belvoir, Va., er ------___ 1. 265 School ------~~nservation------___ 495 I Includes $45,000,000 reduction for Trident to adjust to appropriations that wlll be available with lull funding of re cameron Station, Va., energy conservation------417 quested amounti n fiscal year 1977 for Trident. Fort Monmouth, N.J., energy conservation------:------2 130 P blo Army Depot, Colo., energ~ EMP simulator faCility ---iit___ 1' 108 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM W~brldge Research Facility, a., D C research support faci Y-- 1' 849 ~~~~{ ~~7~,A~:e~e:!~i~~:~~--~-~------~~~ ~,946 Navy witnesses testified that the Navy program will provide facil 0 ities for new missions, current missions, and modernization of the Total reductions------. ------Shore Establishment. - 1,611 This year in their military construction program, the Navy stressed Additions: N C dining facility, modernize------:::::::::::::::_ 1, ~~ projects associated with strategic forces, operational, trairung, ship Fort Braggb, £11. Ky dental clinic------1, ~;;. Fort CamP e • ·• t liniC------__ 2, """" yard modernization, maintenance and production, medical and health, Fort Carson, Colo., den ~d1 ~ouse additiOn------:::__ 1, 251 housing and community facilities, pollution abatement, energy con· Fort Greeley, .A.ladsink~, gtl~acility modernize------5, 036 servation, and nuclear weapons security. Fort Hood, Tex., lD ' ------6 278 Tactical equipDlent shoPS------=------l 900 Under strategic forces, $140,000,000, or approximately 24 percent of Anuual trainiwng hfacldl~~tai-~ibrl.~::::: ______:::::::: 1: 959 this year's program, was requested for Trident construction. Included F rt Lewis, as ·• ------2 061 is $11,0002000 for Trident community impact support. o Dining facility, moderniz~l;;;y;t;m, aircraft hangar------2' 224 Operational facilities constitute approximately 10 percent of Title Fort Wainwright, Ala~ka, lspdental activity------2,612 II. Maintenance and production facilities excluding Trident are ap . Fort Gordon, G a., reg1ona. facilitY modernize------1, 686 Fort Knox, Ky., dodimn~ dintn'g facllitY, modernize-h------:::::: 2, 260 proximately 7 percent. The modernization of shipyard and medical Fort Leonard VV o 'N y' odernize large caliber s OP------facilities are each approximately 8 percent. For medical moderniza VVatervliet Arsenal, · ., m ------35,859 tion theNavy re • ' 22 23 Number of Amount Facilities description projects (thousands) FACILITY ClASS SUMMARY [In thousands of dollarsj , . . lecilon of ship generated wastes·-········:::::::::::::::::: 2 $4,668 Shore facthttes for the11 tl~ol or treatment systems...... ---·--·-·-·· 6 7,162 S 'tary sewage co ec on ·------·-· 3 13, 177 to municipal sewer systems •. :::::::::::------·::::::::: C~~~ections 4 1,195 Description Ru,uest, Committee Ojl containment ~ructu~eseCiamaiiiiii-iacilities •••••••••...••.•• ::::::::::::.••••••••. ___ -:::;---;z;; 2 5,274 Navy arine approved, Otly warist1e co~ec cg/le~tiori Improvements •• ------·- 4 4,613 Corps Total Marine Navy Corps lndust a wa e ------···-·········------Total Total.-·------···-··-··. ------ 21 36,089 50,263 33,930 940 51,203 799 34,729 47,563 940 172,883 1,889 33,930 799 48,503 174,772 139, 319 I, 889 34,729 T'1tl II was re- 3, 087 ····-··----- 3,087 141,208 . $42 4'66 000 or 8 percen~ of e b · tive of 10,521 ...... 10,521 3,087 ------For energy C .. 24 25 The committee add d $ the magnetic field surrounding the submarines, and a support build for the Fleet M · e l,046,000 for electric 1 . ing; (3) additional missile support buildin~s and magazines; and (4) to substitJ t . anne Force Pacific, Cam H ~a po~er llllprovements 0 administrative and personnel supJ?ort facilities. by tl1e Na~; Als~U:JJ J the $9,851,000 ~ni~er~i~~th,, Oahu1 Hawaii, The total approved for facil1t1es construction by the committee is Island Recruit Dep teS wahs a baehelor enlisted qua Wlthdrawn 0 ~OJect $140,472,000 broken down by location as :follows: moderni · · ' out Carolina · th r ers at the Parris Thousands ditions c~~:Jd~~~dg quarters which fail% ;e~~I!n,t of $4,,2~0,000 to Bangor Submarine Base, Wash------$116, 244 The committee apnpecessadry to recruit and retain Mm~m hvmg con- Keyport Torpedo Station, Indian Island Annex, Wash------8, 700 rove new authorit . th annes. Community impact assistance, Trident facilities------11, 000 y 1ll e amount of $47,276,000. Point Mugu-Pacific Missile Test Center, CaliL------2, 922 CHIEF OF NAVAL Q-nvn • Cape Canaveral-flight test facilities, Fla------1, 606 . .-~noNs The Ch1ef of Naval . Total------140,472 exercises comm - d 0 peratiOns, under the Se The committee wishes to stress that it is authorizing for construc signed shore ac~i~iti:er certain central executi:ere~;ry ~f t~e Navy, tion all of the projects included in the FY 1977 budget request through The request was $6 9ofodoothfe opera.ting forces of tt:Natlons, as- the use of the unused authorization in prior years for which appro under th ' ' or five pro· t avy. priations were denied. includes th~~~~~nd of the C~ief of NaJ:Ic o;!rfi:C slloT activities . The significant gl c;x>nservatlOn projects in the a!~ons. he request NucLEAR WEAPONS SEcURITY FAciLmEs In the amount of $p O]ects requested were. (1) a I unt.of $1,359,000. mander in Chie:f t,8~0,000 to be located at Cam n S nt.e1hf,ence Center The request was $29 700,000 for one location inside and one location amount of $130o'oo~C1fic; and (2) the Naval Hi~to:ltf Cor the.Com- outside of the United States in the amounts of $27,206,000 and $2,494,- The Intelligen~e Ce te . Jca enter 1ll the 000, respectively. These projects will provide construction to improve physical security at six installations which store, maintain and issue mT~a;ep~h~ ntsew joint-s~rvlc~i~l:Jfig:~~ pro~ide facilities to accom IO]ec added by the committee f llcen er organization. nuclear weapons. Installation and pr . t 0 OW: New 0 I· OJec The committee added $7,375,000 to substitute in part for the $9,851,- • · r eans, support activit · 000 University project withdrawn by the Navy. The total authorized ValleJo, support activity C l{f La., bachelor enlisted qu t Thoueat!ds ' a ., bachelor enlisted quart ar ers______+$1, 400 is $37,075,000, with $34,581,000 and $2,494,000 :for projects inside and Total ers ______· +2 543 outside the United States, respectivel;v. After fiscal year 1977, the Navy has a remaining deficit for facilities of $36 million. The addi S The Baeh:l~;E~li~t~d-Q~~~-;------:------+B' 943 tion o:f $7,375,000 will enable the Navy to accelerate its program and th~Pfojf~c~?tivity was added at ~~~e~!s~or the New Orleans N~val substitute secure facilities for operational manpower costs. 0 with the 4~h ~{a~j!e ~!I ~{V!ine Divisi~n, loc~1etf~t~vy tp:facilita.te MARINE CoRPS Re~~! ~I;n~f~~a:~.r ~h~ c:3foc~~!~ih~~~::v~Na~~sd!~M:;:,t_J:;: The primary mission of the Marine Corps is to provide air and procedures. ' ammg and Marine Reserv yd ~ . arme For Vall · N e a mm1strative ground forces for the seizure and defense o:f advanced Naval bases . . eJo ava.l Supp t A .. and the conduct of land operations incident to the prosecution of the pnority fiscal e o~ ctlVIty, the commit Naval campaign. The request for 15 projects at nine installations, was percent of the &ah 1978 pr?Ject bachelor enlisted tee added a high $41,980,000, which includes $3,570,000, $249,000 and $2,891,000 for crease the availa~l elor reqmrement is available Thfuarte;s. O~ly 27 two air ana one water pollution abatement, and four energy conser The committee e spaceds to 51 percent o:f the totals proJect Wlll in- vation projects, respectively. This year the Marine Corps continued approve new authority in th spaees needed. its emphasis on the provision of new and improved personnel support e amount of $10,902,000. COMMANDER IN CHIEF A facilities. The two significant projects in their request were: (1) a T ' TLANTIO FLEET 1,620-man bachelor enlisted quarters in the amount of $14,842,000 for or . h~ C<;mmander in Chief, Atlanti the Camp Lejune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina; and (2) a 1,078-man bachelor enlisted quarters in the amount of $11,120,000 for ~ita~:;;~~~!~h~!~ing, dlogistic an~ :~i~l~t~~~f~!ses operational, the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, California. Other projects mstalJatio Th me an fleet marme for command over will provide training, automotive maintenance, and personnel support staUations~sinci:d:dq~~ttl?s $58,021,000 fo~e~3a~~oJ~t~or;in.ghsh?re $6,401,000 for one . IS amount was $300 000 . a erg t m- facilities and utility improvements. 6 The projects added by the committe~ follow: enTrhgy ?On~ervatio:~r~~~t~h~eespe':i~r pollution ~bate!~~r ~~ /nd Imta!U.tron an .. 27 $11.5 million and a request this year of $8,048,000 :for the Commander missileama City training Naval· School( 2) a di . I savage1 trammg. . facility for the Pan- Oceanographic System Atlantic, Dam Neck, Virginia; and (3) an air ofv~.g. combat maneuvering range in the amount of $13,000,000 for Oceana ope~ational advantages of c~n:~tlnd S:lvage, Flo:ida, to obtain the per1mental Diving Unit and th N ng { Cschool with the Navy Ex Naval Air Station, Virginia. T(3h)eAschool will be moved fror: thev~V h3:stal Systems Laboratory. The projects reduced, and added by the committee :follow: t the San Diego Detachment f as Tmgton, D.C. Navy Yard Installation ana project ~·hou8and8 Center, Pearl Harbor a submar· o . Submarine Training Norfolk Naval Station, Norfolk, Va., berthing pier (reduction)------$2,700 t~e ~aval New London Submarine Base, New London, Conn., utilities improve- ~~ ~ training respo~sibility fo~~h~Pmr:g f~lility for assumption ment +3,168 p ~ 688 and earlier classes of subm . .acl c eet for the crews of The $2,700,000 reduction in the berthing pier was possible because of roJects deleted and added by the co:~~~~ follow: a reevaluation by the Navy of the inflation factors used :for this In8tal!ation ana project project. The amount requested was $24,900,000, and the amount recom- l\Iemphis Air Station Tenn . mended for authorization is $22,200,000. I~dus~rial \Vaste' colledtlon_____ Thottsanda The utilities improvement at the New London Submarine Base will (,11 spill prevention ______------$218 ~{ea:n and condensate systems_:=====------291 provide adequate utilities distribution systems to serve the increased , umcipal sewer connection ------1 168 demand which has resulted :from new facilities construction. · ensacola Air Stat• F ------• U.S.I Naval Acad wn, la., 8 1;1PPlY support cent~~======------194 The committee approved new authority in the amount o:f $58,489,000. emy, Annapohs, Md., air-condition dining h-l~------+1, 430 Tot 1 a ------+1, 418 CoMMANDER IN CHIEF, PACIFIC FLEE'r The projectsa ------at Mem h' ------:------+977 The Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet exercises operational, or Installation Reduction ~nds Clere demed. because the Navy in the ganizational planning, logistic, and administrative command over air, Marc.h 17, 1976 indicated that th~ur.e ~elalhgnment an~ouncement of surface submarine and fleet marine forces and supporting shore in a maJor reduction. IS ms a atwn was bemg studied :for stallations. Requested was $41,865,000 :for 20 projects at 11 installa The committee added $1 430 000 . tions. Included in this amount was $22,818,000 and $11,562,000 for five Pensacola Naval Air Station ' Fl f?r a supply support center for the water pollution abatement and nine energy conservation projects, ~9,851,000 University project' withdda, tobsubstitute in part :for the respectively. IS needed to relocate su 1 d .r~wn .Y the Navy. This facility The major regular projects will provide range impron~ments at the r~lea~e space needed by tB~ :Ja~ lmEdistra~Ive functions, which wiil Fallon Naval Air Station, Nevada; aircraft parking apron and utilities tlon Support Activity for consoiidati~cahon and Training Informa- improvements at the Miramar Naval Air Station, California; a tor puter hardw~re equipment. g personnel and housing com- pedo retriever facility at the Pearl Harbor Naval Submarine Base; and utilities at the San Diego Naval Station, California. The committee approve d new authority . m. the amount of $20,423,000. The reQuN.;ted amount was approved and one project was added by BunEAu oF MEmcr~"E ANn SuRGERY the committee as follows: Installation and project Thousanas The Bureau of Medicine and S San Diego Naval Station, Calif., pier utilities------+$6, 966 health of Navy and Marine Co urgery safeguard~ and promotes the At the San Diego Naval Station, the pier utilities project will other personnel. The re uest rps personnel, their dependents and provide for cold iron berthing on two piers homeported Fleet units at eight ~nst.allations. q was $44,130,000 for nine regular projects to berth without operating boilers and generators, thereby reducing The Sigmficant projects will . fuel costs and allowing for preventive maintenance on equipment. Jacksonville, }~lorida and Bn P.rr~e: medical/dental clinics at The committee approved new authority in the amount of $48,831,000. a replacement host> itS:! at Orla~d;IFclr 'daval Air Station, Maine. and The pro]' ect d eme d by the committee , or1 follows a. : ' CHIEF OF NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING Installation ana project Bethesda National Medl The Chief of Naval Education and Training is responsible for the facilities ------c~!--~~~~er, Bethesda, Md., physical fitness Thouaand8 education and training of all Naval personnel. The request was . ';('he project was denied b~------.------$2,800 $20,864,000 for 14 projects at nine installations. Included in this ityls questionable whether this pu~~ !lf ;he hbeigh cost of the project, and amount was $1,193,000 and $1,505,000 for four water pollution abate 1977. JCC can placed under contract in ment and four energy conservation projects, respectively. F The si~ificant regular projects will provide: (1) modernization of The committee approved new auth onty . m . the amount of $41,330,000. and additions to the submarme training building at tlu~ Charleston Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine Training Center to provide space for· housing a sonar operational training device and conducting C-4 .. 28 29 BUREAu oF NAVAL PERSONNEL Station, New Jersey, and one each at the Charleston Naval Station a~d Nava~ ·weapon~ Station, South Carolina. The projects requested The Chief of Naval Personnel plans and directs the procurement, will,Provid~ .ll!-agazmes, fire protection improvements, road and sup distribution, and administration of all Navy personnel. The Com portmg faCilities. ma~d a~so devel?ps and implements service-wide program for career The projects reduced, denied or added by the committee follow: motivatiOn and Improved human relations. Requested was $9,470,000 Installation ana project Thou8anas for three regular projects at one installation. Charleston Shipyard, S.C., welding shoP------+$1, 510 The installation is the New Orleans Naval Personnel Center and Charleston Sh1pyard, S.C., electrical distribution system______+4, 562 the :projects :w:ould have provided bachelor quarters, roads, and ex Gulfport Construction Battalion Center, Miss., maintenance and repair facility ------+4,287 tensiOn of ubhty systems. Pearl Harbor Shipyard, Hawaii: During committee hearings, the Navy advised that it had reversed Machine shop modernization______-1, 761 its decision to move some elements of the Bureau of Naval Personnel Electric shop modernization______+7, 400 from W ~shington, D.C. to New O.rleans, Louisiana, thereby cancelling the reqmrement for the three proJects requested. Total------+15,998 In fiscal :ye~r 19?6, $21.3 million was authorized and appropriated At the 9harl~st~n S~ipyard, the committee added a welding shop for an admmistrabve complex at New Orleans. No construction con ~nd electnca:l distributiOn system projects. The welding shop project tracts have been awarded for this project. IS needed ~hi~ year to: ( 1) improve efficiencies of welding operations, The projects denied by the committee follow: an? (¥) ehmmate congestion created by traffic to supply receiving and InBtallation ana project sluppmg de~artments and publication and printing office. New Orleans, Naval Personnel Center, La.: TlwuBands The ':lectrical distribution system project is needed this year to Bachelor enlisted quarters------$2, 775 modernize an overloaded and outmoded power system that seriously Bachelor officer quarters------4, 154 constrains e1~cient industrial operations of the shipyard. Roads and utilities extension------2, 541 The committee added a maintenance and repair facility project at Total------~--- 9,470 the Gulfport Construction Battalion Center, which it firmly believes is ?J-eeded this ;re~r to : ( 1) satisfy a space deficiency generated by an No new authority was approved. mc!'eased miSSion reqmrement to provide up through depot level mamtenance support of Fleet Construction Force and Construction NAVAL )\.'!ATERIAL COMMAND Training Unit equipment, and (2) replace inadequate facilities. Fur The Naval Material Command is the single integrated material ther: ~eferr.al of au.thorizing and fundmg the Maintenance and Repair support agency for the Navy. Its mission includes the development, Facihty will reqmre large quantities of work to be performed out procurement and support of total weapons systems, depot maintenance, doors, thereby lowering effectiveness and increasing costs. Increased supply management and facilities support. Requested was $99,339,000 costs also result from the operation and maintenance of inadequate for 25 regular, seven water pollution abatement, and 26 energy con facilities. servation projects at 30 installations. The Navy request included $1,761,000 for modernization of a ma A major portion of the request, $42,000,000, was for the modern chine shop at the Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor. The request relates to ization of Naval Shipyards. Of the 11 projects requested, five projects a project originally authorized in the Fiscal Year 1975 program. will provide improved maintenance and production facilities at four Funds for construction were not appropriated until Fiscal Year 1976. shipyards; one project will provide a new engineering/management Because of ~he i~flation experienced during the period since the project building; four :projects will improve utilities at four shipyards, and was authorized, It was estimated that an additional $1.2 million would one prOJect will rmprove a portal crane rail system. ?e required to construct the ori~iJ?-al scope. The total of $1,761,000 also Other significant projects requested to support the Trident I (0-4) mcl!lde~ some $600,000 for additiOnal scope. Bids were opened on the missile were a module maintenance facility addition at the Charleston proJect m early March. The Navy reports that full scope of the Fiscal Naval Shipyard, and a missile facilities addition at the Polaris Missile Year 1975 project can be obtained within the monies available. Further Facility, Atlantic, Charleston, South Carolina. The project costs are revi.ew ~y tp.e Navy of. tl:e new scope inclu.ded in the fiscal year 1977 $3,444,000 and $2,315,000, respectively. proJect mdicates that It IS no longer reqmred. Therefore, the entire For the first time, the Navy requested $8,000,000 for a program to fiscal year 1977 project has been deleted from the Navy authorized minimize the hazards associated with homeporting ammunition ships program. (AE's) and fast combat support ships (AOE's). On the west coast, The committee added the Electric Shop Modernization project as it eight AE's will be homeported at the Concord Naval Weapons Sta is con:inced the modernization ,of this sh?P is needed this year for tion, California, and two AOE's at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the shipyard to operate at maximum efficiency and accomplish new Washington. Indian Island will be the ammunition storage point for workload assignments of repairing and maintaining the Spruance the ships homeported at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. On the Class Destroyers and SSN 688 Class Submarines. $115,337,000. east coas~_, three AE's will be home ported at the Earle Naval Weapons Committee approved new authority in the amount of 31 30 vide the authority needed to permit all valid fiscal year 1974 projects OcEANOGRAPHER oF THE NAVY to be constructed. No additional appropriations are being requested for this amend The request was $7,400,000 fo:r; one pro· t. to provid~ ~~ adminis- ment. Historically, :funding for the utilization of the cost variations trative complex that will permit conso tion of actlv1tles of the ~rovisions of authorization acts has come from available appropria Oceanographic program at Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. tions. The relocation out of 'Vashin.g. top ~nto. eight bll;Il.ding~ in a ca~pus The committee approved the amendment so that all vnlid projects like setting at the old NASA Miss1ss1ppi test fac1lity w!ll ~onso.hdate may be constructed, otherwise the projects constrained bv the ii::;cal activities that are at four dispersed sites and in 19 bmldm~ .m the year 1074 Title II ceilin~ '\Yould have to be re-authorized in a :future Washington area. The existing buildings a~ the NASA test fac1hty ~re military construction autlwrization act. ideally suited to the Navy's Ocean?grap~IC p:r;ogr~m. The rel?c!tt10n will reduce management and operatwnalme:fficienc1es and admmistra su~HfARY OF AtiTHORIZATION AcTIONS tive overhead. Based on these factors, the requested amount was approved. (Title II) A summary of actions taken on the Title II request o:f the X a ''Y is NucLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY tabulated below by project: Installation and project Tho~tsands (Outside the United States) Total of request------~------$526,913 Uniformed Service University: Bethesda, Md., university------9, 851 The request was $2,494,000 to provide a hardened power system and Trident: Vari • 33 FACILITY ClASS SUMMARY TITLE III-Am FoRCE lin thousands of dollars! The Air Force requested $730,233,000 under Title III of the bill dis Air Force tributed as follows: request OperationaL ••• ------·------··------·---- Air Force Committee ~~: ~~~ rs: ~~ request approved TJ:i~i~:arici:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 11, s1s 2s, 795 R.D.T. & E.•• ------•. __ ----.--·------.--·.-----···------44j: m 44~: ~~~ Inside the United States ••••••••• ·------•••• -··------•• __ • $673, 088, 000 $687, 866, 000 ~~~k-~::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 28, 8900 28, 890 Outside the United States ______••••••••••••••• ------.···- __ -· •••• _ 57,145, 000 56, 650, 000 Administrative ______·------.• ------•• --.------·--- 0 Bachelor housing.------··-····------·------.---· •• ----·------6, 49~ 6, :fs TotaL------•• __ ------•••• ------·.... 730, 233, 000 744, 516, 000 ~6~uTi~~i~b:~c~~:t_ :::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: s1, 473 st. 473 Air ••• ------.---····------••• ------··------···------. (33, 089) a~·~~~~ . !later •••••• ____ .•• _.------(18, ~} • 0 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM Utilities ____ ------•• ------28, 058 27 480 Energy ••• ------··----··---·-----···------·------.------28, 703 za', 703 Nuclear weapons.------·------·------····-- , 10,167 Air Force witnesses testified that the Air Force program consisted Real estate ••••• ------·--·------·------·------··--··----·----___10.:.__ 167 ____ _ primarily of projects to support the force and deployment goals pre Totals ___ ••••• ------_____ ._ ••••• _.------••• ----- ____ ---·· 730, 233 744, 516 sented to the congress in the Air Force Secretary's and Chief of Staff's posture statements. They placed particular stress on several items: AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND $28 million for improvements to existing facilities to reduce ener~ consumption; $38 million for Protective Aircraft Shelters; $28.9 mil (Inside the United States) lion for Hospital and Medical Facilities; $28.7 million for improve ments to Munitions Storage Security; $33 million for pollution abate The Air Force requested $1,720,000 for one project: construction ment projects, the bulk of which ($32.7 million) is to correct a serious of a Noncommissioned Officers Academy at 'I;'yndall Air Force Base, problem at ·wright-Patterson Air Base, Ohio; and $437 million for Florida. the construction of an Aeropropulsion Systems Test Facility at The request of $1,720,000 was approved. Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tennessee. The committee gave careful consideration to all projects and a sum Am FoRCE LoGISTICS CoMMAND mary of aut·horizations requested and approved is presented as follows: This program contained a request for $66,124,000 at seven locations MAJOR COMMAND SUMMARY where Air Force Logistics Command is the host command. Included are projects in support of .AW .ACS, Drone Engineering Research and {In thousands of dollars! a small increment of the Depot Plant Modernization Program. Air Force Committee The committee approved the projects in the Air Force request and Command request approved also three additional high priority projects. One project in the amount of $5,400,000 for a Minuteman Support Facility at Hill Air Force Inside the United States: Aerospace Defense Command______1, 720 I, 720 Base, Utah was added in consonance with a budget amendment in support of Minuteman. Also two high priority requirements not pre 4 4 ~~~ ~~~f~i~~:Jr~~{~£~~~~~~==::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: li: ~H u: m viously included in the ~;>rogram were added: one at Hill .Air Force ~i~s~~i;'l[fj~;;.n·.naii .. 34 35 $437,000,000 to be constructed at the Arnold Engineering Development Among the projects in the program is on~ for the construction of a new Center near Tullhoma, Tennessee, which is contained in this request. Composite Medical Facility at ~1~us Air ~orce Base, 9klahoma and There was one project for Energy Conservation in the sum of $578,- one for a Flight Simulator Facility at Little Rock Air Force Base, 000 that was not of sufficient priority to warrant current authoriza Arkansas for C-130 pilot training. . . . tion. Accordingly, the committee approved a program of $456,998,000 Two projects for an Aircraft Instrument Facility: one at Altus A;r for the Air Force Systems Command. Force Base. Oklahoma in the amount of $145,000 and one at TraVIs Air Force Base California in the amount of $220,000 were deferred Am TRAINING CoMMAND because equipm~nt procurement will not occur in ~ime to wn:rrant co~ struction authorization in fiscal year 1977. Not mcl~ded m the .Air Construction projects totaling $18,034,000 were requested in this Force request was a project to construct a Squ~~:dron Fhg~t OperatiOns program for six bases where Air Training Command is host. Included Facility at McChord Air Force Bas~, Was~uJ!.gton w~uch the Com- are projects supporting the Air Force Flight Simulator Program for mittee recognized and ,approved 'as a h1gh pnonty reqmrement. . . training of Undergraduate Pilots. $5,717,000 is requested for a facility Accordingly, a program of $16,961,000 was approved for the Mili at Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi and another at Randolph Air Base, Texas for $3,627,000 Also included is an Airmen Dormitory tary Airlift Command. Modernization project for Mather Air Force Base, California. PACIFIC Am FoRcEs One project at Williams AFB, Arizona in the amount of $332,000 for an Aircraft Instrument Facility was deferred since equipment pro (Inside the United States) curement will not occur in sufficient time to require construction to start until late Fiscal Year 1977 or early 1978. The Committee did, The requested prog:t"am for the Pacific Air Forces, inside the U~jted however, recognize two high priority requirements not included in the States totals $4145 000 and is for Hickam Air Force Base, Hawau. Air Force request. These were: a Navigational Aids Shop at Columbus The program' was ' approved as sub mitte . d . Air Force Base Mississippi in the amount of $337,000 and an Aircraft Control Tower at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi in the amomlt of STRATEGIC Am CoMMAND $592,000. Accordingly, a program of $18,631,000 was approved for the Air (Inside the United States) Training Command. Am UNIVERSITY This bill provides $63 938,000 for construction of facilities at nine teen bases where the Str~tegic Air Command is the host command. I.n The program contained a request for $123,000 for one energy con cluded is $19 740 000 for facilities to accommodate the Advanced Air servation project at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. borne Comm~nd 'Post and a $17,513,000 Composite Medical Facility at The program was approved as submitted. Offutt Air Force Base Nebraska. The committee in turn noted th.at there was an urgent req~irement for an addition to a Recreation. Fa?Il ALAsKAN Am CoMMAND ity at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, and added authonzatwn of $978,000 to enable this construction. This program provides $3,768,000 for three projects at three loca The program for the Strategic Air Command was therefore ap tions. The projects will provide for Water PollutiOn .L\.batement, an proved m the amount of $64,916,000. Aircraft Instrument Landing System and a Satellite Communications Ground Terminal. TACTICAL Am COMMAND The program was approved as submitted. The construction program requested at bases where th~ Tactical Air HEADQUARTERS COMMAND Command is host amounts to $18,848,000 for both operational and sup port type facilities. This incl~des five operational,. maintenance and The construction program at bases where Headquarters Command is storage projects for Moody Air Force Base, Georgia to support be4- host amounts to $4,295,000 for energy conservation at two bases. One down of the new F--4 fighter mission. Also included in the progran; IS project is to be accomplished at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland $7 500 000 to enable the Air 'Force to acquire a 47,000 acre bombmg and the other at Bolling Air Force Base, Distri()t of Columbia. and ~nnery training range on the East Coast. The program was approved as submitted. The request of $18,848,000 was approved. MruTARY .AIRLIFT CoMMAND U.S. Am FoRCE AcADEMY New construction requested for the .. Military. Airlift·· Command The Air Force Academy construction program consisted of one (MAC). involves nine prqjects at eight, locations· where 'MA.C is host energy conservation project in the amount of $354,000. and contains a ·request for $16,423-,000 for. suppoit of. base missions. The program was approved as submitted . • 36 37 STRATEGIC Am CoMMAND Am INSTALLATION CoMPATIBLE UsE ZoNES (AICUZ)-ZoNE oF INTERIOR (Outside the United States) The bill contains an authorization request for protective zones that The Strategic Air Command program outside the United States must be established adjacent to selected air installations to prevent en consists of one project at Anderson Air Force Base, Guam, that croachment by residential and commercial developments into hazard amounts to $4,170,000. The one item is construction of a 38,270SF ous and high aircraft-noise areas. Involved is acquisition of real estate facility to provide an adequate bcility for an effective corrosion con interests in fee and restrictive easements in the amount of $2,217,000 trol tha.t is extremely important in Guam because of the high humidity to establish necessary protective air installation compatible use zones and salty air. at eight Air Force Bases. The program was approved as submitted. The program was approved as submitted. U.S. Am FoRcEs IN EUROPE NucLEAR WEAPONS SEcURITY The program for the United States Air Force in Europe contains a (Various Locations Inside the United States) request for $38,000,000 for aircraft protective facilities. The program was approved as submitted. The bill contains a request for nuclear weapons security improve ments and !llmounts to $15,523,000 at various locations throughout the NucLEAR WEAPDNS SECURITY United States. Improved security measures and systems are required to guard against the capture of weapons by terronst groups for polit (Outside the United States) ical or monetary gain. Requirements consist of area and boundary lighting, fences, for deterrence, observation towers hardening. This program contains a request for $13,180,000 for construction of The program was approved as submitted. security improvements for ~uclear weapo?s storage si~s outsi.d~ the United States that are classified. The proJect Will proVIde additiOnal AEROSPACE DEFENSE CoMMAND and improved ar~a and ~oundary lighting, observation towers,, hard ening, and security fencmg to weapons storage and armed aircraft (Outside the United States) alert areas. The program was approved as submitted. This bill contains a request of $495,000 for one project at one loca tion, Thule Air Base, Greenland. The project will provide an Aircraft SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION ACTIONS Instrument Landing System. The committee found that the equipment required for this and other (Title III) Aircraft Instrument Landing Systems could not be procurred in time to warrant Fiscal Year 1977 construction authorization. The program A summary of actions taken on the Title III request of the Air for the Aerospace Defense Command (outside the United States) was Force is tabulated by project as follows: therefore deferr~d. lMta!lation and projeut Thousands Total ot request------$730,233 Am FoRCE SYSTEMS CoMMAND Air Force Logistics Command : Hill AFB, Utah, Minuteman support facilitY------ +5,400 (Outside the United States) Hill AFB, Utah, missile shoP------ +2,343 Robins AFB, Ga., weapons system facility------+5,500 This request is for construction of a facility to house a radio solar Air Force Systems Command : Arnold Engineering Development Center, energy conservation------578 telescope and associwted equipment. The solar observation facilities Air Trainin'g Command : provide source da,ta on the earth's magnetic and near space atmospheric Columbus AFB, Miss., navigational aids shOP------ +337 environment required by military surveillance and warning systems Keesler AFB, Miss., control tower------ +592 satellite tracking, orbital and missile trajectory predictions and world Williams AFB, Ariz., aircraft instrument facilitY------332 Military Airlift Command : wide communications. The facility will also contribute to other U.S. Altus AFB, Okla., aircraft instrument facility------145 Federal agency requirements for space environmental data. McChord AFB, Wash., squadron flight operations facility ______+903 The cost is estima.ted at $1,300,000. Travis AFB, Calit., aircraft instrument facilitY------220 The request was approved as submitted. Strategic Air Command: Malmstrom AFB, Mont., additi ~ew authorization totaL------744, 516 ... 39 II n thousands of dotlarsl OSD Committee request approved De~nse Mapping Agency ...... 1,478 1,47~ TITLE -DEFENSE AGENCIES g:, nsa rucl~r Agency •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• : •••••• 6,672 IV 9nse uppf~enty •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 21,212 9,130 National Secunty gency ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2,247 2,247 Authorized Requested Total, Inside the United Stele$•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• --...;_ 31,609___ 12,855.:...... ;. ge:ense ruclear Agency ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 950 0 Inside the United States...... $31,609,000 $1;. e eose upply Agency •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• _:_2,091 2,091:....:.:: Outside the United states •••••••••••••••••••• c...... 3, 041,000 .., __ ___ Secretary of Defense Contingency •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••,__ s....:.o,_ooo,....:._ooo ___ to~, ~":":' Total, outside the ~nited Slates ••••••...••.....••••••••••••••..••.•••••••••• 3,041 2,091 Secretary of Defense contingency ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 30,000 10,000 Total...... 64, E50, 000 Z4, 946,000 Total ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••===:=~=="== 64,650 24,946 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM: FACILITY Cl.ASSES SUMMARY The Secretary of Defense request in this Bill was $64,650,000 of [In thousands of dolillrs] which $M,650,000 was to provide for the construction of new facilities OSD Committee and rehabilitation of existing facilities for the Defense Agencies at Description request approved 27 named installations. With few exceptions, Defense Agencies activ ~erationaL...... • •• 1, 393 1,393 ities are located at military installations, either utilizing existing fa alntenance and productiOII ••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• :.:::•• 930 930 cilities or siting required new facilities on these installations in the 6, 672 0 6,635 interest of economy. $30,000,000 was for emergency construction au 10,~~ 500 8, :rsg 0 thorization for the Secretary of Defense to provide for unforeseen 0 construction requirements in emergency situations. 3,395 3,395 191 191 The request for air and water pollution abatement projects was ~~~1~~,-=~:~:-::!:~:-~::--~:-:.=~-~: .. ~.:~---~=~~-l~-:::: 1,902 1,902 $191,000. This request W?S for one .project which will pr~Vlde an oil ------34,650 14,946 containment structure. Smce pollution abatement was not mcluded as OSD co~~~niy:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 30,000 10,000 an onmibus project in this year's bill, this project was identified sepa Total •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ____64,650.....;_ ___ Z4,946~ rately for the Defense Fuel Support Point, Cincinnati, Ohio. For Energy Conservation, $1,902,000 or 5 percent of Title IV (ex cluding the OSD emergency construction request) was requested to DEFENSE MAPP:lNG AGENCY (D.M.A) provide facilities that will meet the objective of the energy conserva tion program. The !>rojected program for the next three years is $5.2 . Tfl.e Defense Mapping Agency, f'?r which $1,478,000 in new author million. This year's mvestment of $1.9 million will save approximately IzatiOn was requested W·as formed m 1972 by Presidential and DoD $370,000 annually, and return the investment in approximately 5 years. Directives by consolidating the resources of the Military Departments The Title IV request includes 3 energy conservation projects broken to furn~sh mapping, eh~rting, and geodesy (MC&G) support to the poD With ?Ptlmum effic:u~ncy and economy. The DMA's basic mission down by type as follows: 1s to furrush the operatmg forces maps, charts and position data needed by troops on the ground, aircraft, ships and missiles to navi Number of Amount Facilities description projects (thousands) gate, operate and hit their targets. This a?~orization will provide !or mo.de~ization of temperature and humidity controls of the Erskine Building at the Defense Map ping Agency Topographic Center, Bethesda, Maryland 1 plus the con struction of a flood retaining wall as well as the alteration of a carto graphic and geophysical production plant at the Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center, St. Louis, Missouri. · The committee gave careful consideration to all projects and the The amount requested was approved. following table summarizes the authorization requested and approved for each Defense Agency: DEFENSE NUCL1Wt AGENCY (DNA) (38) ~e Defense Nuclear Agency for which $7,622,000 in new authori z!l>tiOn was requeste~ has four l!lajor ·areas of responsibility as its mis mons: {1) staff adVIce and assistance on nuclear weapons matters to • 40 41 the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Ohiefs of Staff, the Military De partments, and other Government Agencies; (2) consolidated man n:echanization of fol!-r warehouses, extension of sprinkler systems of agement ot the DoD Nuclear Weapons Stockpile; (3) management of srx warehouses and rmproyements to ~he. patrol road at the Defense DoD Nuclear ·weapons Testing- and Nuclear ·weapons Effects Research General Supply ~nter, Rrchmond, Vtrgmia; standby power in sup· Programs; and (4) performmg technical studres and analyses and port of the ~pe_ratwn ot the Defense Integrated Data System at· the coordinating directives on nuclear related matters for the Department Defen~e LogrstiCs Serv1~s ((enter, Battle Creek, Michigan; a water of Defense. pollutiOn abatement prOJMt m the tank truck loading.area at the De The projects denied by the committee follow: fense Fuel Support Point, Cincinnati, Ohio; and the procurement of Installation and project Thou· fuel termil!als at H~rrisville, Michigan.; and Verona, New York. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Bethesda, Md., animal Banas The proJects demed by the committee follow: research facilitY------$6,672 lnstaUa'Hon and flt'O!ect T Johnston Atoll, fire station------950 Cameron St.ation, Va., rehabilitation of bui·ldings 3 and 4 hou;a;;:; The committee believes that since the design of the Animal Research E!'ca.naba, Mich., fUel terminal procurement______:::::::======- · 672 Newmgto!l, N.H., fuel terminal procurement______- o Facility has not started, this facility can be deferred and DNA should 4 0 further e1ramine their requirements to see if other existing facilities Ozol, Calif., fu:l terminal procurement------== 3, 010 can be utilized. The DoD wibhdrew the requirement for the Fire Sta T~e comrmttee considers that it is not economical to invest $8 000 _ tion at Johnston Atoll. 000 ~n.ware~ouses that wer~ completed in 1942 and since convert~d t~ The committee denied new authority to the Defense Nuclear Agency. adnmu~tra~n·e spac~ .. J?SA JS r~q~1e~ted to investigate the availabilit ~f othe1 sm.table faC!hi'Jl's to sah:>fv 1ts ll<>Nl. The existin!! lenses forth~ DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY (DSA) Fuel Termi_nal.pro?urements _will allow these projects ·to be deferred and authorizatiOn Is not reqmred in fiscal vear 1977 The Defense Supply Agency, for which $23,303,000 in new authori The committee approved new authority 'in the a~ount of $11 221 zation was requested, is responsible for the organization, direction, 000. ' ' ,- manag-ement and administration, and control of supply and service NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY (NSA) functiOns or departmental activities including the operation of a wholesale distribution system for supplies. Also included in the De . T~1e National Security Agency, :for which $2,247.000 in new author fense Supply Agency responsibilities are the administration and su IzatiOn was requested, replaced the former Armea Forces Securit pervision of the Department of Defense coordinated procurement pro Agency and was c~eat~d by t.he .Secretary of Defense in 1949 to unil gram, the Federal catalog system, excess and surplus disposal (per t~1e separate. orgamzatwns w1thm ea?h military department. The N f_ sonal property) program, the defense material utilization program, twnal Security Agency, under the direction and control of the Secre the item entry control program, the industrial plant equipment pro ~ary of D~fense, pe_rforms. highly specialized technical and coordinat gram, the technical (RDT&E) report services and the centralized re mg fnnctwns :elatmg to Its mission of national security and intelli ferral system for disElaced DoD employees. In fulfilling the desig gence productwn. nated mission, the Defense Su1>ply Agency continues toward the full n~e autho~ization will pr<;>vide internal alterations to building 9817 assumption of its responsibilities for providing uniform policies and ~nd n:st~llatron of solar gnd screening to minimize solar heat gain~ -procedures in the field of inventory, control, accounting, cataloging, m Bmldmg 1 at NSA Headquarters, Fort George G Meade Mary- standardization, procurement, requirements computation, inspection land. · ' • and quality control, mobilization and industrial readiness planning The amount requested was approved. storage, inventory and distribution, maintaining technical logistics data and information, and initiating value engineering projects. In OFFICE, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE addition, the Defense Supply Agency has been assigned the mission for consolidation of the Contract Administration Services of the The _Offi~, Secretary of Defense has requested $30.000 000 in new Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the National Aeronautics and authonzatwn :for emerg~ncy construction authorization fo~ the Secre Space Administration. tar:y of Defen~e to provide for unforeseen construction requirements This authorization will provide for a concrete floor in shed 22 and a whiCh he con~1ders vital to the security of the United States. health clinic at the Defense Construction Supply Center, Columbus, The Comm1~tee after the review of the availability of the OSD mili Ohio; storage facilities at the following Defense Property Disposal tary ~onstructron contmgency is of the opinion that'$10 million will be Offices: Ayer, Fort Devens, Massachusetts; Duluth Air Force Base, sufficient for FY 1977. Minnesota; Groton, Connecticut; Gunter Air Force Base, Alabama; The committee approved new authority m the amount of Fort Riley, Kansas; Wurtsmith, Michigan; and Kaiserslautern, Nur $10,000,000. emberg, and Seckenheim, Germany; heating plant improvements at the Defense Electronics Supply Center, D.a:yton, Ohio; fuel pier: re placement a;t the Defense Fuel Support Pomt, Lynn Haven, Florida; • 42 SuMMARY oF AUTHoRIZATION ACTioNs . . A summary of actions taken in the Title IV request of the Defense Agencies is tabulated below by project: . InstaZZa.tion ana project Thousands Armedresearch Forces facility Radiobiology ______Research Institute, Bethesda, Md., animal --$6,672 TITLE V -MILITARY FAMILY HousiNG Cameron Sf:!ltion, Va., rehabilitation of buildings 8 and 4------8, 000 The Department of Defense presented an authorization request for Escanaba, Mich., fuel terminal procurement------~72 appropriations for military family housing of some $1.3 billion in Newington, N.H., fuel terminal procurement------~------400 fiscal year 1977 as follows: Ozol, Calif., fuel terminal procurement------8, 010 Thousands Johnston Atoll, 11.re station------950 OSD emergency construction autih'Orization ____ .------20, 000 Construction of new housing (1,054 units)------$52, 085 .~rmy (652 units)------ 25,510 26,575 Navy (402 units)------Improvements to existing quarters (includes energy conservation in vestment: $32,400)------50,890 Minor construction------5,220 1,005 Planning ---------- Total construction authorization request______109,200 Less: Amounts available from prior years ______--5,300 ---- Total authorization for appropriation request, construction__ _ 103,900 ()perating expenses------550,428 Leasing ------~------~------97,488 ~aintenance of real propertY------403,184 Debt payment-principaL------' 112,874 Debt payment-interest and other expense ______44,327 Mortgage insurance premiums-Capehart and Wherry______1,642 2,531 'Servicemen's mortgage insurance premiums------Total 0. & ~. and debt payment authorization request______1, 212, 474 Less: Anticipated reimbursements and amounts available from prior years------~-- -13,527 Total authorization for appropriation request, 0. & ~. and debt payment------1,198,947 Grand total authorization for appropriation request______1, 302, 847 The program presented exceeded $1,302,847,000 by $18,827,000, the latter representing amounts recouped from prior year authorized programs, and anticipated reimbursements. The amount of $1,302,- 847,000 requested authorization for appropriation compares with $1,332,244,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1976. NEW CONSTRUCTION Defense proposed the construction of 1,054 new family housing units for fiscal year 1977. The magnitude of new construction is well under the 3,031 units authorized by the Congress last year. The Defense wit ness indicated that the · sizable reduction in new construction was brought about, in large measure, through this committee's support of past programs. Such support enabled Defense to make significant progress in reducing the housing deficit. The three locations for which new construction were proposed either are experiencing sizable build ups of personnel strength or have no current alternative to new construction. (43) .. 44 45 Since it is the basic policy of the DepnrtnlPUt of Defense to relv crease by $95 ntillion under this budget from $238 million at the end on the private housing markets near mihtary installations as the pri of fiRcal v~ar 1975 to about $3.33 million by the end of fiscal year 1977. mary source of housing for military families, Defense has begun con The committee continues to be concerned this year with the worsen sultations with the Depa1tment of Housing and Urban Development ing deferred maintenance situation which,.if allowed to continue, can to verify the extent of a\-ailability of adequate housing at the two only result in detariol'ation of the family housing inventory and have locations in the domestic part of the new construction program. It an adverse effect on the morale of occupants. The committee feels that came to the committee's attention that there has been a long standing the maintenance situation cannot be ignored and should take prece need for 40 family housing units at Gila Bend Ait· Force Auxiliary dence over improvements to the housing inventory. Accordingly, the Field, Arizona. The requirement is for 20 two-bedroom units and 20 committee deleted all :funds for the improvement program and reduced four-bedroom units. It was further revealed that the local community the request from $50,890,000 to $25,890,000. The approved amount in cannot provide the needed housing. Accordingly, the committee Section 502 of the bill will be limited to energy conserva.tion projects. added a 40-unit project for Gila Bend AFAF, Arizona, at an estimated The denial of regular improvements generates $25,000,000 in savings cost of $1,676,000. The committee is convinced that the limited new which the committee is adding to the housing ma.intenance account in construction program is wananted and accordingly has approved Section 505(2) o:fthe bill. authorization of 1,094 new family housing units. Defense also reqnested the exemption of improvement projects at the Marine Corps Development and Education Command, Quantico, COST LIMITATIONS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION Vir!rinia, the Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii, and f.he Presidio of San"'Francisco, CaJifornia, from the $15;000 cost limitation on im~ In previous years, statutory cost limitations on new construction provements. In keeping with the deletion of the regular improvement involved an average as well as maximum cost per unit. The Defense program, this request was denied by the committee. witness indicated that in past years, when many projects wet~C in volved, these statutory controls worked well and provided enough DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN LEASING PROGRAMS flexibility for Defense to execute the program. Projects in high-cost areas were offset by projects in low-cost areas so that the average could The commit:Jtee heard testimony that Defense considers the leasing be maintained without too much difficulty. However, since this year's programs as important supplements to its bahinced effort for the ac new construction is limited, the flexibility afforded by past controls quisition of adequate housing in the community and on-base. As in has vanished. Accordingly, Defense has proposed, and this com previous years, the average statutory cost limitation proposed by De mittee is in agreement with the proposal, that each project should fense for'the domestic program is commensurate with the increase in stand on its own with its own dollar limitation for a specified number the "rent" portion of the consumer price index. The statutory maxi of units. The Committee concurs with the Defense witness that such a mum per unilt cost proposed is $450 per month. Presumably, such a limitation continues to provide the Congress with the necessary con high maximum would enable Defense limited utilization of the pro trol on the cost of new family housing construction. gram for personnel on detached duty, such as recruiters, located in In addition to the above, Defense sought authority to increase the high-cost metropolitan areas. For the foreign leasing program, De individual project cost limitations by up to 10 percent. Such added fense is proposing an increase in the statutory cost limitations based on flexibility is intended to meet unusun.l variations in cost not percepti an estimated escalation in rents of approximately 6 percent in foreign ble at the time the project cost was originally estimated. The commit countries. No increase in the number of leases is proposed for either tee feels that some amount of flexibility should be afforded to family the domestic or foreign program. The commit:Jtee approved the requests housing in keeping with the flexibility accorded other military con as submitted. ~ struction projects by the Congress in Section 603 of this bill. Accord ingly, the committee has approved the Defense request. F:\:\IILY IIOTIRTNG MANAGE~IENT ACCOUNT IMPRUVEMENTS TO EXISTING FA:t\-HLY HOUSING Until fiscal year 1962, costs of Department o:f Defense family hous ing were carried in 16 different accounts. A comprehensive overview The Defense witness stated that there is a total of $50.9 million in was next to impossible. ·with the strong support of this committee, the th~ proposed progra~ to improve and alter existing public qua:rters Family Housing Management Account was set up in fiscal year 1963 to prtmanly those comndered older and somewhat deteriorated. Sixty provide visibility to this important support function thus facilitating four ·percent (or ·$32.4 million) of the $50.9 million requested is management. specifically designated for energy conservation projects. While the In the fourteen years from fiscal yE>ar 1963 through Septemhl'r 30, committee is sympathetic to the requirements for improvements to the 1976, $11.9 billion has been made availa:ble in the account for family existing inventory, it is more impressed by the continuing deterioration housing functions. Construction cost $2.7 billion; operation and main caused by the lack of sufficient maintenance funds. The Defense witness tl'nance has taken $6.8 billion; and debt payment requirements were advised the Committee that costs of utilities, fuels, and wages, con $2.4 billion. About 94,000 new family housing units and some mobile tinue to rise, and noted that this will reduce funds available for main home f·acilities were constructed, some of the existing housing was t<'nance. !Je stated that the backlog of deferred maintenance will in- improved to current standards of liva'bility and energy conservation .. 46 efficiency, and related planning and design was done with the construc tion funds. In fiscal year 1977, some 400,000 units will be supported from the operation and maintenance funds. Debt payment amounts cover payments of principal, interest and mortgage insurance pre miums on some 180,000 of the units in inventory, representing an original debt of $2.5 billion, with an outstanding balance of $1.2 TITLE VI-GENERAL PROVISIONS billion. The committee wishes to commend the Department of Defense for Section 601 is language which permits the Secretaries of the Mili its continuing efforts to focus attention on, and improve the operation tary Departments to proceed with construction authorized free of of, family housing functions through effective use of the Family Hous certa}n limitati~n.s _in existing law pertaining to advance of public ing Management Account tool provided by the Congress. momes and acqUisition of land as follows : 31 USC 529 which specifies the general prohibition against advances of public monies, · AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS 10 USC 4774 and 9774 which establishes limitations upon con Authorization for the appropriation of $80,576,000 for the con struction of permanent structures, in the absence of other author struction and acquisition portions of the military family housing pro ization, and gram was approved by the committee. The committee also approved 49 USC 255 which prohibits ac9uisition of land by purchase $1,223,947,000 for operation, maintenance and debt payment, for a until a written opinion in favor of T1:tle validity has been obtained. total authorization for appropriation of $1,304,523,000. The prohibitions specified in the first and third limitations cited above, If applied, would preclude timely construction in instances of military necessity. Section 601 grants excer,tions to these limitations. .S.ection 602 is l9:nguage which customarily appears in each annual mihtary constructiOn Act and corresponds to the equivalent section in prior year Acts (e.g., Sec. 602, P.L. 94-107), except that the do1lar all?-ount.s ar:e changed to the amounts of authorization for projects con tamed m titles I, II, III, IV, and V, of the Act. It limits the amount which m3:y be appropriated to carry out the projects authorized by separate titles of the Act. Section 603 is the section of the General Provisions which serves the dual purpose of providing some degree of flexibility to Defense and the Services for exceeding the authorized cost of a project, when such increases could not reasonably have been anticipated, and it also establishes specified limits on the use of this flexibility to meet un foreseen circumstances. Last year this provision was rewritten to elim inate the requirement for deficiency authorizations but required that i!l ~ert';tin instances _where the use of this auth_ority exce~de~ specific h~It.atwns, _the proJec~s could not proceed without expiratiOn of a waiting perwd or specific approval of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. This year the Department of Defense had pro posed to delete this Congressional oversight. The committee deter mined to retain the language in last year's bill as essential to main tenance of adequate Congressional oversight of this authority. Section 604 is identical to section 604 in last year's Act (P.L. 94- 107). This section has the effect of directing that construction executed under this Act ( 1) be done by the Army Corps of Engineers or the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, or such other department or Government agency as the Secretaries of the military departments recommend and the Secretary of Defense approves to assure efficient, expeditious and cost-effective accomplishment; (2) that the Secre taries of the military departments report annually to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives a break down of the dollar value of contracts completed by the construction (47) 48 49 agencies, together with the design, construction supervision, and over was prompted by the situation at Glasgow Air Force Base, JHontana. head fees charged by such agencies ; ( 3) that all contracts (except for This base, which the Air Force finds unnecessary for the active duty architect and engineering contracts which, unless otherwise author forces, appears to have great potential as an energy park, since it is ized, shall continue to be awarded in accordance with presently estab located in an area rich in coal deposits and at the confluence or pro lished procedures, customs and practice) be awarded msofar as prac posed pipelines from the N ocrth Slope. 'Dhe Department of Defense ticable on a competitive basis to the lowest responsible bidder; and expressed enthusiasm with this potential use of the base, but indicated ( 4) the Secretaries of the military departments report annually to the that it was without authority to fund the studies and environmental President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives impact statements that would be necessary to adequately assess such a with respect to all con~nwts ~warded on. ~ther tha~ a competitive basis potential reuse of the base. The Committee feels that the Federal to the lowest responsible bidder. Add1twnally, It provides that the Government has a responsibility to find new and beneficial uses for reports shall show the ten architect-engineer firms which in terms of similar military installations that are no longer required rather than total dollars were awarded the most business and a listing of the con letting them deteriorate for lack of a relatively small investment in tracts for each firm. study funds. Funds required to accomplish necessary studies must be Section 605 is similar to the repeal authorization provided in each appropriated annually in the Military Construction Appropriation annual Act and provides for repealing unused authorization with cer Bills and the Committees on Appropriations will examine such re tain exceptions by a given date, usually two years from the date of t~e quests to ensure they are necessary and desirable in the national last year's Act. As a result, after .January 1, 1978 only those authori interest. zations, with certain exceptions, which are contained in Public Laws Section 611 authorizes payment of impact funds to non-profit tele and enacted f5ubsequent to October 7, 1975, would continue to remain phone cooperatives which are being adversely affected by the sudden available. closure of the ABM site at Grand Forks;, North Dakota. Current law Section 606 corresponds to section 606 in last year's Act (P.L. 94- does not provi~e for assistance to non-proht coop~ratives.. . 107). This section prescribes the cost limitations for permanent bar Section 612 Is the base closure amendment discussed m detail else- racks and bachelor officer quarters but increases these limitations. where in this report...... Under this section, the cost limitations as stated in dollar amounts Section 613, the last sectiOn of the General. ProvisiOns IS Identical in the Act are applicable where the area construction cost inde.x is 1.~. to the usual wording contained in each annual Military Construction The cost limitations in areas where the area construction cost mdex IS Authorization Act and is designed to describe the short form title for more or less than 1.0 will be computed and would be proportionately reference to the proposed military construction legislation after it highet· or lower. For example, if the area construction cost index was has been enacted into law. 1.05, the cost limitation for permanent barracks would be $40.95 per square foot. . . . This section would make the new cost hmitatwns of $39.00 per square foot for permanent barracks and $42.00 per square foot for bachelor officer quarters retroactive to projects whi ThflUMIH1.~ Army National Guard------$40, 817 su~IMARY OF THE CoNSTRUCTION AUTE:ORI'l'Y REQUESTED QF CoNGRESS J.lrmy Fteserve------37.&1~ Naval and Marine Corps Reserve------15, 300 · IN THE FiscAL YEAR 1977 'MILITARY CoNSTRUCTION AuTHORIZATION J.lir National Guard------24, 300 BILL Air Foree Reserve------9, 000 INSIDE THE UNITED STATES Total ------127;072 Title VII provides authorization required in fiscal year 1977 in the State and Department or Gomponent Name of installation above amounts to support the facilities programs of the Guard and $3,240.000 Reserve components of the Military Departments. Alabama ••• -----•• ------.----·------··------Under the lump sum authorization procedures used in previous Army ______---- ~~1sf:;!~rseiiaC:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: l: ~~ ggg Air Force •••••••••••• ____ ------__ • Maxwell AFB.------;-" 123,· 000 years, the Congress is to be furnished advance notification concerning Defense Supply Agency ______Defense Property Disposal Office, Gunter AFB------··-----=:.==:==:=:"':'150 000 the location, nature, and estimated cost of al1 projects over $100,000 which are proposed for accomplishment within the total lump sum Alaska------______._------_____ ------25, 203, 000 authorization available. ArmY------· ~~~ w:i~!~ignt:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_: ~~: rijj: ~ro Although each specific project supporting the fiscal year 1977 llU 1 thorization can only be tentatively identified at this time, the current ~rrvJoree::::::::::::::::::::::::: i~t~~~:~xr:~~-=~~=~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: • iii~ program includes $48.5 million to construct. expand, or modify 69 Sllemya AFB •• ------·--·-.------3,110, 000 armories and training centerS for the Army National Guard and the Arizollll ••••• ------·---- ____ ------______•••• , _____ ------L- _____ • ------·-· __ _ _ 11, 922, 000 Army Reserve and an additional $30.0 million will he used· to meet ArmY------·------·--·----- Yuma ProvingGround ••• :. ______, ______------6, ~~~; ~ NIVY------·------Mar!ne Corps Air Station, Yuma.,. .•• ------urgent requirements for vehic~ maintenance, aviation support, field 2 192 000 training, energy conservation, water pollution abatement, and other Air Force .••••••••••••••••••••• --- r::~s-,t~:~n-1~~~-~~~:::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: ' 987; 000 essmtial non-armory facilities; The Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Williams AFB. ------'--•'·---·-·---•• ------·===8=25=,0=00= propose to use $2;1 million fni three training centers and $13.2 million Arkansas ••••••.•••••••• -----·------·------11, 439, 000 for aircraft operations and maintenance facilities and eriergy con servation projects. Similarly, the Air National Guard and Air Force ~r?orce·.:::::::::::::::::::::::: e:.~~t::r~=~~~===~====~~==~==: ==== :::::::::::::: ~.. ~: ~~:.~~ Reserve propose to use $21.6 million for operations and maintenance California.------·------·------.------.------.--·------103, 038, 000 facilities, $2.9 million for training facilities, $3.9 million for general 14 support, and $4.9 million for various other storage and energy con ArmY------·--- ~~~r~!~riiiv-iief>~i:::::~=~~===~= :::::::::::::::::::::::: ' ~~i; ~ro · Sierra Army DepuL-----•------~------1, 489,000 servation projects. Navy •• ----·--···------Marine Corps Base, _camp Pe,ndlellm ••... ----- _------12, 83!,·000 , Naval Supoort Activity, VallelO----"------2, 543,000 The followmg summary represents the status o:f the lump sum au Naval Air Station, Miramar.~ ___ ---· ______----- ____ ----- 4, $~.000 thorization provided since the Guard and Reserve Forces facilities Naval Air Statitn, Moffett .Field.--"·-- ______------__ ----... 896,000 Naval Air.~tation, North Island______11, i~8.·88& program reverted to that method of author·ization in 1963 : Naval facility, Pomt Sur ___ ------______-- _____ ---.- Naval Station, San Die~n ______. ______.. ------8, 38G, 000 Naval SwbmarinB Traimng Center, ~n Diego.------3, ~20, 000 RESERVE FORCES FAC!LlTlES-ESTIMATEO STATUS OF LUMP SUM AUTHORIZATIONS (AS OF MAR. I, 1976) Naval Re,onal Dental Ce11ter, San Diego ____ ._------2, 501,000 (In thousands of dollars( Navy Envmmlllental and Preventive Medicine Unit No. 5, San 1, 270,000 Otego. .· ~ · Naval airWeapons rework Center, facility,.Aiameda;~------Ghlna-lahe ______------_ I,~~~. ~~g Army Naval and Air Force Marine National parachute test range, E.l Centro .. ----- __ ------732, 000 Naval air lacjUty, El Cenb:oc.c."•·------3, 500,000 National Corps National Long Beacll Naval Shlp~a!:d, l,ong Beach______3, 981, ooo Reserve Guard Guard Reserve Reserve Total Pacific Mis~ile Test Centeri P~lnt.Mu~u ••• ------__ ------3, e&7, 000 Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme______183,000 Naval Undersea Center, Sar~l)iego_. __ " ______------~~~·. ~~ 1. Lump sum authorization (cumulative fiscal year Navy Public Works Center, San Francisco."·------1963-76).------·------· 250,078 227,759 161, 820 220,973 87,250 947,880 Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo. ______------9, 302,000 2. Estimeteof authorization to be committed through 245,833 222,675 160, 311 217,823 81.542 928, 184 Trident facilities, Point Mugu. ___ ._ •. --·-.------•• __ ----- 2, 922. 000 fiscal year 197!L •••••••••• ------Air Force·------Beale AFB •••••• -----··-··· ••, •• --·- _____ •• ____ -----_----. 1, ~~~· ~ 3. Uncommitted balance._. ______• ______4, 245 5, 084 1, 509 3,150 5, 708 19,696 Castle AFB." ... ------:. --•· -·------·- l, • OO 4. Added by present bilL ______883 40,817 37, 655 15,300 24,300 9, 000 127,072 ~:m:u:::Fe:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: i; 194: oo8 5. Total available for fiscal year 1977 ...... 45,062 42,739 16,809 27,450 14, 708 146,768 Norton AFB .• ------·-· ------.. ~~', ::6 26,550 14, 708 Pillar Point AFS •• ----. _------·. 6. Estimated commitments in fiscal year 1977 .•..••• 41, 000 42,259 16,809 141, 326 Vandenberg AFB ...... ·.. "--·------1, 454,000 7. Estimated residual authorization, end fiscal year 1977 ---·------·····------4,062 480 0 900 0 5,442 (Gl) (50) • 52 53 S"GMMARY oF THE CoNSTRUCTIOX AUTHORITY REQUESTED oF CoNGREBS SuMMARY OF 1.'IIE CoNSTRUCTIOX AUTHORITY REQUESTED oF CoNGREss IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1977 MILITARY CoNSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1977 MILITARY CoNSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION BrLir--Continued BILir--Continued INSIDE THE UNITED STATES-Continued INSIDE THE UNITED STATES-continued State and Department or component Name of installation State and Department or component Name of Installation Cost Colorado ______------·· •••••••••• ------______·---•• ______$11, 187, 000 Kentucky ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..• _._ •.•.• _•..••••.••••••••• _···------_...... $79, 366, 000 Army Fitnlmons Army Medi~al Center...... 244,000 Army ••••••••••••••••••••••••... - ~~~ ~~~:-~~1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ g&g 10 m: Air Foree...... &~~ ~fi~:..ce-Academy:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: · • ~: g&g Louisiana ••••• ------••••••.•.•. ------.-.-·---· •• -•.•••••••••••••••••. _••.•.. _...... 51. 229, 000 ==~~ Conneetic:ut. -····················-········---·------··------·----··---- 4, 311, 000 Army •. ---••••••.•••.••••••••• --. Fort Polk ••••.•.•••••••• __ ...... __ .. ______...• _ 46, 003, 000 N~vy ..•.•••••••••. ---•••••• ----. Naval Support Activity, NGW Orleans ••• _••• _. __ ._._...... l, 400, 000 Navy •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Naval Submarine Base, New London______•••••• 3, 41\!• 000 Naval Submarine ~hool, New london.------·--::::...... 67<, 000 A1r Force ••••••.•••.•...... _____ ~~r:~':t\f~::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3, ~~ ggg Defense Supp)y Ate~y •••••••••••• Defense Property Disposal Offic:a, Groton.··-·------231,000 ==~ ===~= Delaware: Air Force ...... Dover AFB...... $00,000 Maine.----- ••.• -•••.••••. ---· ••.• ------...••• ------•• -...... 16, 847, 000 Navy •••••••.•••.•.•.••••...... •. Naval Regional Medical Clinic, Kittery...... 4,058,000 Oistri~ of Columbia._---- •••••••••••••• --·-·_. _____ ---- ______------••••••••.=='"3,"'4~37:=, 00"':":0 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery...... 12,173,000 Army ••• --···----- __ ••••••••••••• Fort McNair •••...•• , •• , ...... ____ •••••• ______• 722, 000 Maryland .••••.•.•.•••••••••••••••••••••.••••.•... ---..•.••••••••••••••• _...... 10, 755, 000 ~rvl···-········------········· Headquarters Naval 01str1~. Washinston ••••••••• ______1, 300, ooo t oree...... Bollin11 AFB ••••••.• ·-··--··---·····-----···--······---- 1, 415,000 Florida •••• ______------·------65, 808, 000 :::~~: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~:f=~~g:r~ViQII Ground:::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: l: m:: Naval Or Head...... 383,000 A. F Naval Air Test River...... 2, 701,000 If orce ••••••••••••• ------Andrews AFB...... 2 880' 000 Defense Mapping Agency ______DMA Topographic Center, Bethesda····---·-·-·-·-·-······ '455:000 National Security Agency ______Fort George G. Meade ••••• ------~:::::::::::::::::::: 2, 247,000 Massacllusetts •.•••••••••••••.•.••••••••..•• -----•••••••••••••• __ •••••• ____ .....•.• ___ •.•.•••. 1, 289,000 Army ....•••••••••••••.•.•.•.•••. Natick laboratories...... • 118 000 Air Force •••••••••••••••••••••..• .laurence G. Hanscom AFB ••• ------····----- 671' 000 Defense Supply Agency ______Defense Property Disposai-Office;Aye·r;"r'ort-Deveiis::::::::: 5oo: ooo Michigan ••.. --··-----·-·------.------·------·--••.•••••••••••••..... ----···-· .•.••••• _....====~ 4, 941, 000 ~r;n,orie.:::::::::: ::::::::: ::::: !!!~~:~rt~::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: m::6 000 Defense Supply Agency •••••••••••• Defense logistics S~rvice Center, Battle Creek_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- /.'s6°t ooo Army •.• ------•••• ------••••••• Fort Gordon •..••...... ____ ...... 2, 224,000 Defense Property Disposal Office, Wurtsmith 16L. 000 Fert Banninll---······· _•••••.•••••••••••••••••••.•. __ --· 6, 627,000 Fuel Terminal, Harrisville •••••.••••••••••:::::::::::::::: 100:000 N Fort stewart.----•••. ------__ •••••••••••••. _•••• ____ •.• 38,423,000 Minnesota: Defense Supply Agency ••••• Defense Property Dispose! Office, Duluth AFB •••...... •••••• evy-- ....••••••••••••••••• ----- Navy Supply Corps School, Athens •••••••••••••••••••....•• &70,000 ===1=35~.=000= AI I' Manne Corps Supply Centllr, Albllny ______I, 965,000 5, 796.000 Mississippi ••.• ----···· ••••••••...••. ______•••• __ ••••••••• ___ •• ___ •••••••••.•.•••••••••••• r area ...... ~~J ~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: 10,051,000 ---- =-~~ Navy •••••••••••.•••.•••••••.••.. Naval Construction ,Battalion Center, Gulfport ...•..••••••••• Hawaii...... 41, 521. 000 Air force •••••••••••••• _____ •.•.•. g~~u~~~a;~ft~~~~:c_ ~~-"-~~~·-~-a~-~~--~~~~~--:::::::::::::::: Keesler AFB ••••• _. _••••••••••••••••••••• ____ ••••••••••• Navy ••..•••••••••••••••••••••••• Marina Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay ••.•••. ------·-··· l, $00,000 4, 300,000 CoMmander in Chief, Pacific, Peen Harbor ••••••.••••••••••• llissouri. ••••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••••••••• _•••• ___ ••••• _••••••• ____ •• ___ • __ ••••••••••• ====~ Naval Air Station, Barbllrs Point. ••••••••••••••••.•.•....•• 12,836,000 1 Naval Station, !karl Harbor ••..•••••••••••••.....•••••.•.. 4, 051,000 Arm~·-·························· Fort Leonard Wood.·... ----- Naval Submarine Ba~e. Peart Hubof •••••••••••••••••..••.. 975,000 AFB •••••••• ::::::::::·····--····-···--······· Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit No. 6, 283,000 Air orce •••••••••••••••••••••.•. Whiteman Peerlllarbor. Defense Mapping Agency •••••••••• DMA Aerospace Center, St. Louis •• :::::::::::::::::::::::: Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor.-··----·-----·-- 11,985,000 ===~ Ai H!!adQuarters, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific, Camp Smith, Oahu. 1. 046,000 Montana: Air Forco •••••••••••••••••••• Malmstrom AFB ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•.•••••••• 4, 145,000 r Force .•.•••••••••••••••••••••• HICkam AFB •••••. _..•. ____ •••••••••••••• ____ • _...•••••• Nebraska: Air Force ••••••••••••••••••• Oflutt AFB •••••••••••••••• _•••.••.•••••••••••••••••••••• ====~ Illinois: Air Force ••••••••••••••••••••• Swtt AfB. ______•. __ ..• ____ . __ •••••••.• ______•..•••••• 90,000 Nevada ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••. _••• _._ •.•.••• __ •• _••••••• _••••••.••.••••••••• _••••••• __ •===== Indiana •••••••••••••• _...... ______...... •.•••••• _.•.. ___ •• _____ ...• 8, 733, 000 ----- NaY~----·······---·····-·-----·· Naval Air Station, Fallon...... • • 2, 376,000 Air orca •••••••••••..••••••••••• Nellis AFB •••••••••••••••••••••••:.:::::.::::::::::::::: 245,000 Army ••...•...•.....••••••••••••• Fert Benjamin Harrison .. ------···-····--·------~,87, 000 Indiana Army amlllllnition plant...... 6, 758,000 New Jersey •••••••••••••••••••• --••••••.. -•••••..•••••••••• _••••• _•••• _... ___ • __ •.• ___ ••••••••=~== Navy ••.•••••••••••••.••••••••.•• Naval Weapons Supper! Ceirter, Crane...... 968,000 ---- Kansas ...... __ ••.••••• ___ ....• ___ .••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••• __ •••••• 25, 335, 000 Army •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Pk:atin~ ArsenaL...... 500, ooo Navy •••••••••••••••••.•.•••••••• ~=::/ Ai~~ti~~ta~~~hEarle •••••:::::::::::::::::::::::: 2, 895,000 Army •.•..•••••••••• _.----.•••.•• Fort leavenworth ..•••••••••.•• _.•• _____ ...•...••• __ ••.•• 190, 000 , urst...... 117,000 Fort Riley ••••..... ______••....•••••••.•..••••.• __ ..... 5, 694, 000 New Mexico •••••••••••••••••••••••.••.•••••••••••••••••••• ----•••••• ····-••..•...•.••••••••••==~ Kansas Army A111111Unition Plant.. •.•••••••. ------493,000 Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant.------...... 15,238,000 ArmY---··············------·-·· White Sands Missile Range______---- Air Force ..••.. __ •• __ •••••• ___ ••• _ McConnell AFB •• _•...• _•.•.• _____ •• _•••• _... ______. •.•. 2, 948, 000 Air Force •••••••••••••••••••••••• Holloman AFB ••••••••••••• _____ :::::::::::::::::::::::: Defense S,~pply Agency •••••••••••• Defense Property Disposal Office, Fort Riley...... 772,000 == ==~ .. 54 55 SuMuARY oF THE CoNsTRUCTION AUTHORITY REQUESTED oF CoNGRESs su~DIAR'Y 6:F.''l,'HE CONSTRUCTION AuTHORITY REQUESTED OF CoNGREss IN TI'!E'FISCAL YEAR MILITARY CoNSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION 1977 1~ THE FrscA.L YEAR 1977 MILITARY CoNsTRUCTION Au:rHoiuzATION BILL-Continued BrLir-Continued INSIDE THE UNITED-STATE5-Cantinued INSIDE THE UNITED STATES-Continued State and Department or component Name of installation Cost State and Department or component Name of installation Cost New VorL.------$8, 639, Mo Texas __ : ______------~------. ______----··------__ • $28, 987, 000 Army ____ ------~~s.ecr.M~~~ fc~~~'m-y:::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: z~~n: ~~g Army .•. ------_ Fort Hood .. _. ___ -_------20, 033, 000 Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant______116,000 Watervliet ArsenaL .• __ ------__ ------3, 383, 0~0 Navy _____ .c ••• c ------______N~val Su~port Activity, Brooklyn.------491, 0 0 Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant______86,000 USA Fuel Lubrication Research Laboratory______469,000 Air Force.------~~~~~~trg~AF'ii::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::: ~~~; ~~g Air Force •••• ------: Carswell AFB. _.. ___ ------..•• ------732, 000 Defense Supply Agency ______Fuel Terminal, Verona·------===20=0;,,0=0=0 Kelly AFB. _----- __ ----•••• --·------2, 374, 000 Randolph AFB _. _____ • _. _-.------4, 927, 000 North Carolina ______------56, 547, 000 Re Navy •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Marine Corps Recruit Depot1 Parris lsla~d •.•••.--.------4, 499,000 Army----- ___ ------______Various locations. ______------______15, 907, 000 Navy Fleet Ballistic Miss1le Submanne Trammg Center, 2, 504, OQO Defense Supply Agency ______Defense Property Disposal Office, Kaiserslautern______575,000 Charleston. Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston...... 11,256,000 Defense Property Disposal Office, Nuremberg______649,000 Naval Weapons Station, Charleston...... 8, 796,000 Defense Property Disposal Office, Seckenheim______867,000 Polaris Missile Facility, Atlantic, Charleston...... 2, 315,000 Air Force ••••••••••••••••••••••••• Myrtle Beach AFB...... I, 570,000 Guam ______------_____ ------_----- __ ------______.------______===== 6, 031, 000 Tennessee •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• _...... 463, 609, 000 ~ir"tcirce:::::: ::::::::::::::::==: ~~~;~s~~g;~i8~:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: l: ~n: ~~ Army ••••••••••••••••••••..•••••. Holston Army Ammunition Plant...... 23, ~OI~,· ggg Iceland._.------_--______------______9, 009, 000 Milan Army Ammunition Plant. •...... •..•.•••••••.•••• Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant.------285,000 NaVY---···------Naval Station, Keflavik______6, 009,000 Air Force ••••••••••••••••••••••••• Arnold Engineerina: Development Center...... 439,010,000 Naval security group activity, Kefiavik. ______... ______3, 000, 000 Italy: Army ••• ------Various locations______I, 088,000 Korea: Army _____ --·------. Various locations______=====13, 669, 000 56 SuMl\IARY OF THE CoNSTRUCTION AUTHORITY REQUESTED OF CoNGRESS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1977 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION Biu~Continued OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATEs-Continued State and Department or component Name of installation Cost Okinawa: Army ______•••• __ • ______Okinawa •• __ ------____ .---____ ------______$124, 000 ==== Puerto Rico: Navy ______Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads______4,160, 000 Various locations (overseas) __ ------__ •• ______._. __ •• _____ -- ___ •• _------______----- 188, 830, 000 ~~~t~~~==== ::::::::::::::::::: ~:~:~::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: l:t ~~: 5 Locations not specified: Office, Secretary Various ___ -_-- ______------______10, 000, 000 of Defense. Guard/Reserve Forces ______,-______127, 072,000 40,817,000 ~~~~ ~=!~~~:1_ ~~~~~:::::: :::::::: ~=~~~~~=::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 37,655,000 Naval and Marine Corps Reserve ____ Various------15, 300, 000 Air National Guard ______Various ______• ______•• ______----_------24,300,000 Air Force Reserve.. ______------___ Various ______._------__ •• ______----- 9,000,000 SuMMARY OF THE MILITARY FAMILY HousiNG NEw CoNsTRUCTION AuTHORITY REQUESTED OF CoNGREss IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1977 MrLITARY CoNsTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION BILL State, service and installation Number of unitll Arizona, Air Force, Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field______40 Louisiana, Army, Fort Polk------652 Washington, Navy, Naval Complex, Bangor______242 Iceland, Navy, Naval Station, Kefiavik------160 0 H. R. 12384 lF\intQ!,fourth Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the nineteenth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and seventy-six an act To authorize certain construction at military installations and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, TITLE I-ARMY SEc. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop mili tary installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, converting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, for the following acquisition and construction: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES COMMAND Fort Bragg, North Carolina, $33,293,000. Fort Campbell, Kentucky, $65,387,000. Fort Carson, Colorado, $10,589,000. Fort Drum, New York, $7,114,000. Fort Greely, Alaska, $2,854,000. Fort Hood, Texas, $20,033,000. Fort Lewis, Washington, $2,114,000. Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, $1,142,000. Fort Ord, California, $14,453,000. Fort Polk, Louisiana, $47,613,000. Fort Riley, Kansas, $5,694,000. Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Air Field, Georgia, $39,634,000. ' Fort Wainwright, Alaska, $17,163,000. UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND Fort Belvoir, Virginia, $6,052,000. Fort Benning, Georgia, $10,394,000. Fort Bliss, Texas, $3,856,000. Fort Eustis, Virginia, $3,016,000. Fort Gordon, Georgia, $2,224,000. Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, $987,000. Fort Knox, Kentucky, $10,379,000. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, $190,000. Fort Lee, Virginia, $1,115,000. Fort Rucker, Alabama, $1,841,000. Fort Sill, Oklahoma, $1,181,000. Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, $15,249,000. ,-.·:· 't,~P./1 ;\ v --·· •, ·"- . 7. i ' H. R. 12384--2 UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Fort McNair, District of Columbia, $722,000. UNITED STATES ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, $726,000. Detroit Arsenal, Michigan, $340,000. Kansas Army Ammunition Plant, Kansas, $493,000. Letterkenny Army Depot, Pennsylvania, $8,357,000. Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, $495,000. Natick Laboratories, Massachusetts, $118,000. Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, $560,000. Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, $6,934,000. Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado, $417,000. Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Virginia, $25,663,000. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, $1,126,000. Scranton Army Ammunition Plant, Pennsylvania, $162,000. Seneca Army Depot, New York, $421,000. Sharpe Army Depot, California, $551,000. Sierra Army Depot, California, $1,489,000. Tooole Army Depot, Utah, $2,572,000. USA Fuel Lubrication Research J.Jaboratory, Texas, $469,000. Watervliet Arsenal, New York, $3,383,000. White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, $349,000. Woodbridge Research Facility, Virginia, $2,130,000. Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, $6,978,000. AMMUNmON FACILITIES Holston Army Ammunition Plant, Tennessee, $1,118,000. Indiana Army Ammunition Plant, Indiana, $6,758,000. Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texas, $116,000. Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant, Texas, $86,000. Milan Army Ammunition Plant, Tennessee, $512,000. Radford Army Ammunition Plant, Virginia, $387,000. ' Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant, Kansas, $15,238,000. Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant, Tennessee, $285,000. UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY United States Military Aca:demy, West Point, New York, $2,857,000. UNITED STATES ARMY HEA'LTH SERVICES COMMAND Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Colorado, $244,000. Walter Reed Army Medical Center, District of Columbia, $1,108,000. UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY TRAFFIC COMMAND Sunny Point Army Terminal, North Carolina, $531,000. NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY Various locations, $2,575,000. H. R. 12384-3 OuTSIDE THE UNITED STATES EIGHTH UNITED STATES ARMY, KOREA Various locations, $13,669,000. UNITED STATES ARMY, JAPAX Okinawa, $124,000. UNITED STATES ARMY SECURITY AGENCY Various locations, $4,480,000. UNITED STATES ARMY, EUROPE Germany, various locations, $15,907,000. Italy, various locations, $1,088,000. Various locations: For the United States share of the cost of multi lateral programs for the acquisition or construction of military facili ties and installations, including international military headquarters, for the collective defense of the North Atlantic Treaty Area, $80,000,000. Within thirty days after the end of each quarter, the Secretary of the Army shall furnish to the Committees on Armed Services and on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Repre sentatives a description of obligations incurred as the United States share of such multilateral programs. NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY Various locations, $49,393,000. EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION SEc. 102. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop Army installations and facilities by proceeding with construction made nec essary by changes in Army missions and responsibilities which have ' been occasioned by ( 1) unforeseen security considerations, ( 2) new weapons developments, ( 3) new and unforeseen research and develop ment requirements, or ( 4) improved production schedules, if the Secre tary of Defense determines that deferral of such construction for inclusion in the next Th:Iilitary Construction Authorization Act would be inconsistent with interests of national security and, in connection therewith, may acquire, construct, convert, rehabilitate, or install per manent or temporary public works, including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities and equipment in the total amount of $10,000,000. The Secretary of the Army, or his designee, shall notify the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Repre senta.tives, immediately upon reaching a final decision to implement, of the cost of construction of any public work undertaken under this section, including those real estate actions pertaining thereto. This authorization will expire upon the date of enactment of the Military Construction Authorization Act for fiscal year 1978 except for those public works projects concerning which the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives have been notified pursuant to this section prior to such date. H. R. 12384-4 TITLE II-NAVY SEc. 201. The Secretary of the Navy may establish or develop mili tary installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, converting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, for the following acquisition and construction : INSIDE THE 1JNITED STATES '.rRIDENT FACILITIES Various locations, $92,278,000. MARINE CORPS Marine Corps Supply Center, Albany, Georgia, $1,965 000. :Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, $22,001,000. Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California, $12,720,000. Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina, $526,000. Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, $1,900,000. Fleet Marine Force Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, $799,000. Headquarters, Fleet Marine Force Pacific, Camp Smith, Oahu, Hawaii, $1,046,000. Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina, $4,499,000. Marine Corps Development and Education Command, Quantico, Virginia, $532,000. Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona, $940,000. CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS Naval Support Activity, Brooklyn, New York, $491,000. Naval Support Activity, New Orleans, Louisiana, $1,400,000. , Commander in Chief Pacific, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $4,300,000. Naval Support Activity, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, $201,000. Naval Support Activity, Seattle, Washington, $667,000. Headquarters Naval District Washingt.on, Washington, District of Columbia, $1,300,000. COMMANDER IN CHIEF, ATI,ANTIC FLEET Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, Florida, $272,000. Oceanographic Svstem Atlantic, Dam Neck, Virginia, $8,048,000. Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida, $6,101,000. Naval Station, Mayport, Florida, $1,674,000. Naval Submarine Base, New London, Connecticut, $300,000. Flag Administrative Unit, Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, $223,000. Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia, $24,246,000. Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia, $14,457,000. COMMANDER IN CHIEF, PACIFIC FLEET Naval Station, Adak, Alaska, $1,418,000. Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Hawaii, $12,836,000. Naval Air Station, Fallon, Nevada, $2,376,000. N ava.l Air Station, Miramar, California, $4,958,000. Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, California, $896,000. Naval Air Station, North Island, California, $11,720,000. H. R. 12384-5 Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $4,051,000. Naval Submarine Base, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $975,000. Naval Facility, Point Sur, California, $160,000. Naval Station, San Diego, California, $8,386,000. Naval Air Station, '\'bidbey Island, Washington, $1,055,000. NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, $1,639,000. Naval Supply Cor.ps Sohool, Athens, Georgia, $670,000. Navy Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine Training Center, Charles- ton, South Carolina, $2,504,000. Naval Air Station, Memphis, Tennessee, $1,871,000. Naval Submarine School, New London, Connecticut, $672,000. Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, Rhode Island, $490,000. Naval School of Diving and Salvage, Panama City, Florida, $10,800,000. Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida, $1,546,000. Naval Technical Training Center, Corry Station, Pensacola, Florida, $900,000. Naval Submarine Training Center, San Diego, California, $3,520,000. Naval Training Center, San Diego, California, $5,455,000. Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Florida, $1,208,000. BUREAU OF MEDICINE Al'."D SURGERY Naval Regional Medical Center, Jacksonville, Florida, $7,393,000. Portsmouth Naval Regional Medical Clinic, Kittery, Maine, $4,058,000. Naval Regional Dental Center, Newport, Rhode Island, $1,975,000. Naval Hospital, Orlando, Florida, $23,850,000. Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit No. 6, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $283,000. , Naval Regional Dental Center, San Diego, California, $2,501,000. Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit No. 5, San Diego, California, $1,270,000. CHIEF OF NAVAL MATERIAL Naval Air Rework Facility, Alameda, California, $1,191,000. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington, $10,876,000. Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South Carolina, $11,256,000. Naval Weapons Station, Charleston, South Carolina, $8,796,000. Polaris Missile Facility, Atlantic, Charleston, South Carolina, $2,315,000. Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California, $950,000. Naval ·weapons Support Center, Crane, Indiana, $988,000. Naval 'Veapons Station, Earle, New Jersey, $2,835,000. National Parachute Test Range, El Centro, California, $732,000. Naval Air Facility, El Centro, California, $3,500,000. Naval ConstructiOn Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi, $4,551,000. Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, Maryland, $383,000. Naval Torpedo Station, Keyport, Washington, $2,145,000. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine, $12,789,000. Naval Air Station, Lakehurst, New Jersey, $117,000. j ,:_•. \ -~ \ ' ,... "·.._ {7 ',..,.,. H. R. 12384-6 Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California, $3,981,000. Navy Ships Parts Control Center, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, $135,000. Navy Public Works Center, Norfolk, Virginia, $454,000. Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, Maryland, $2,701,000. Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, $11,985,000. Xaval Air Rework Facihty, Pensacola, Florida, $7,784,000. Navy Public ·works Center, Pensacola, Florida, $95,000. Navy Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, $629,000. Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, $4,607,000. Pacific Missile Test Center Point, Mugu, California, $3,087,000. Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California, $183,000. Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, $5,909,000. Naval Undersea Center, San Diego, California, $811,000. Navy Public Works Center, San Francisco, California, $190,000. Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California, $9,302,000. OCEANOGRAPHER OF THE NAVY Naval Oceanographic Center, Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi, $7,400,000. NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY Various locations, $34,581,000. OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES COMMANDER IN CHIEF, ATLANTIC FLEET Naval Station, Keflavik, Iceland, $6,009,000. Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, $4,160,000. COMMANDER IN CHIEF, PACIFIC FLEET f Naval Magazine, Guam, Mariana Islands, $1,861,000. NAVAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMAND Classified location, $1,832,000. NAVAL SECURITY GROUP COMMAND Naval Security Group Activity, Keflavik, Iceland, $3,000,000. NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY Various locations, $2,494,000. EitiERGENCY CONSTRUCTION SEc. 202. The Secretary of the Navy may establish or develop Navy installations and facilities by proceeding with construction made necessary by changes in Navy missions and responsibilities which have been occasioned by ( 1) unforeseen security considerations, ( 2) new weapons developments, ( 3) new and unforeseen research and develop ment requirements, or ( 4) improved production schedules, if the Secretary of Defense determines that deferral of such construction for inclusion in the next Military Construction Authorization Act would H. R. 12384-7 be inconsistent with interests of national security and, in connection therewith, may acquire, construct, conve1t, rehabilitate, or install per manent or temporary public works, including land acquisition, site preparation, appurlenances, utilities, and equipment, in the total amount of $10,000,000. The Secretary of the Navy, or his designee, shall notify the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, immediately upon reaching a decision to implement, of the cost of construction of any public work undertaken under this section, including those real estate actions pertaining thereto. This authorization will expire upon the date of enactment of the :Military Construction Authorization Act for fiscal year 1978 except for those public works projects concerning which the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives have been notified pursuant to this section prior to such date. DEFICIENCY AUTHORIZATIONS SEc. 203. Public Law 93-166, as amended, is amended by striking out in clause (2) of section 602 "$549,849,000" and "$608,682,000" and inserting in place thereof "$560,849,000" and "$619,682,000", respectively. TITLE III-AIR FORCE SEc. 301. The Secretary of the Air Force may establish or develop military installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, con verting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including land acquisition, Site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, for the following acqmsition and construction: INSIDE TilE uNITED STATES AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, $1,720,000. AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND ' Hill Air Force Base, Utah, $16,587,000. Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, $2,374,000. McClellan Air Force Base, California, $1,194,000. Newark Air Force Station, Ohio, $266,000. Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, $10,051,000. Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, $5,348,000. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, $35,804,000. AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tennessee, $439,010,000. Eglin ~1\.ir Force Base, Florida, $354,000. Laurence G. Hanscom Air Force Base, Mas,c:;achusetts, $671,000. Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, $198,000. Pillar Point Air Force Station, California, $450,000. Various locations, $10,250,000. AIR TRAINING COMMAND Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi, $6,467,000. Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, $1,350,000. Mather Air Force Base, California, $3,883,000. H. R. 12384--8 Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, $4,927,000. Reese Air Force Base, Texas, $250,000. Williams Air Force Base, Arizona, $825,000. AIR UNIVERSITY Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, $123,000. ALASKAN AIR COMMAND Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, $210,000. Shemya Air Force Base, Alaska, $3,110,000. Fort Yukon Air Force Station, Alaska, $448,000. HEADQUARTERS COMMAND Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, $2,880,000. Bolling Air Force Base, District of Columbia, $1,415,000. 1\ULITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, $11,377,000. Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina, $1,468,000. Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, $900,000. Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas, $2,305,000. McChord Air Force Base, "'Washington, $286,000. Norton Air Force Base, California, $900,000. Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina, $200,000. Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, $90,000. PACIFIC AIR FORCES Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, $4,145,000. STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND , Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, $3,628,000. Beale Air Force Base, California, $7,825,000. Blytheville Air Force Base, Arkansas, $2,200,000. Carswell Air Force Base, Texas, $732,000. Castle Air Force Base, California, $1,270,000. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, $2,192,000. Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, $100,000. Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, $2,441,000. Griffiss Air Force Base, New York, $699,000. K. I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Michigan, $270,000. Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, $3,150,000. McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, $2,948,000. Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, $980,000. Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, $38,060,000. Plattsburgh Air Force Base, New York, $588,000. Rickenbacker Air Force Base, Ohio, $704,000. Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, $1,454,000. Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, $133,000. Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan, $1,607,000. TACTICAL AIR COMMAND England Air Force Base, Louisiana, $198,000. Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, $500,000. H. R. 12384-9 Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, $987,000. MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, $1,022,000. Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, $5,796,000. Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, South Carolina, $1,570,000. Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, $245,000. Seymour-Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina, $1,030,000. East Coast Range, $7,500,000. UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY United States Air Force Academy, Colorado, $354,000. NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY Various locations, $15,523,000. AIR INSTALLA'l'ION COMPATIBLE USE ZONES Various locations, $2,217,000. OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMM..<\ND Classified location, $1,300,000. STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, $4,170,000. UNITED STATES AIR FORCES IN EUROPE Various locations, $38,000,000. NUCLEAR WEAPONS SECURITY Various locations, $13,180,000. EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION SEc. 302. The Secretary of the Air Force may establish or develop Air Force installations and facilities by proceeding with construction made necessary by changes in Air Force missions and responsibilities which have been occasioned by ( 1) unforeseen security considera tions, ( 2) new weapons developments, ( 3) new and unforeseen research and development requirements, or ( 4) Improved production schedules, if the Secretary of Defense determines the deferral of such construc tion for inclusion in the next Military Construction Authorization Act would be inconsistent with interests of national securitY. and, in connection therewith, may acquire, construct, convert, rehabilitate, or install permanent or temporary public works, including land acquisi tion, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and t;quipment in the total amount of $10,000,000. The Secretary of the A1r Force, or his designee, shall notify the Committees on Armed Services of the Sen ate and House of Representatives, immediately upon reaching a final decision to implement, of the cost of construction of any public work undertaken under this section, including those real estate actions per taining thereto. This authorization will expire upon the date of enact ment of the Military Construction Authorization Act for fiscal year H. R.12384--10 1978 except for those public works projects concerning which the Com mittee on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives have been notified pursuant to this section prior to such date. TITLE IV-DEFENSE AGENCIES SEC. 401. The SecretarY. of Defense may establish or develop mili tary installations and facrlities by acquiring, constructing, converting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public works, including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities and equipment, for the following acquisition and construction: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center, Saint Louis, Missouri, $1,023,000. Defense Mapping Agency Topographic Center, Bethesda, Mary land, $455,000. DEFENSE SUPPI,Y AGENCY Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia, $8,000,000. Defense Construction Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio, $855,000. Defense Electronics Supply Center, Dayton, Ohio, $130,000. Defense Fuel Support Point, Cincinnati, Ohio, $191,000. Defense Fuel Support Point, Lynn Haven, Florida, $1,393,000. Defense Fuel Support Point, Melville, Newport, Rhode Island, $225,000. Defense General Supply Center, Richmond, Virginia, $1,624,000. Defense Logistics Service Center, Battle Creek, Michigan, $1,862,000. Defense Property Disposal Office, Ayer, Fort Devens, Massachusetts, $500,000. Defense Property Disposal Office, Duluth Air Force Base, Minne , sota, $135,000. Defense Property Disposal Office, Groton, Connecticut, $231,000. Defense Property Disposal Office, Gunter Air Force Base, Alabama, $150,000. Defense Property Disposal Office, Fort Riley, Kansas, $772,000. Defense Property Disposal Office: Wurtsmith, Michigan, $162,000. TERMINAL PROCUREMENT Harrisville, Michigan, $700,000. Verona, New York, $200,000. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, $2,247,000. OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY Defense Property Disposal Office, Kaiserslautern, Germany, $575,000. Defense Property Disposal Office, Nuremberg, Germany, $649,000. Defense Property Disposal Office, Seckenheim, Germany, $867,000. -"'---""' ~/·'"~\~ ~ ;:. .'; '"':~~1,. I '·· ' .. i ~:;. I, t '"' ' ~:"":\ l•:.- ' "._ .~; ... t7!' ..__ • 1 ~ H. R. 12384-11 EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION SEc. 402. The Secretary of Defense may establish or develop instal lations and facilities which he determines to be vital to the security of the United States and, in connection therewith, may acquire, construct, convert, rehabilitate, or install permanent or temporary public works, including land acquisition, site preparation, appurtenances, utilities, and equipment, in the total amount of $10,000,000. The Secretary of Defense, or his designee, shall notify the Committees on Armed Serv ices of the Senate and House of Representatives, immediately upon reaching a final decision to implement, of the cost of construction of any public work undertaken under this section, including real estate actions pertaining thereto. TITLE V-MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING AU1'HORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT OR ACQUIRE HO'VSING SEC. 501. (a) The Secretary of Defense, or his designee, is authorized to construct or acquire sole interest in existing family housing units in the numbers and at the locations hereinafter named, but no family housing construction shall be commenced at any such locations in the United States until the Secretary has consulted with the Secre tary of the Department of Housing· and Urban Development as to the availability of suitable ,private housing at such locations. If agree ment cannot be reached w1th respect to the availability of suitable private housing at any location, the Secretary of Defense shall notify the Committees on Armed Servkes of the Senate and the House of Representatives, in writing, of such difference of opinion, and no contract for construction at such location shall be entered into for a period of thirty days after such notification has been given. This authority shall mclude the authority to acquire land, and mterests in land, by gift, purchase, exchange of Government-owned land, or otherwise. (b) \Vith respect to the family housing units authorized to be con structed by this section, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to ' acquire sole interest in privately owned or Department of Housing and Urban Development held family housing umts in lieu of constructing all or a portion of the family housing authorized by this section, if he, or his designee, determines such action to be in the best interests of the United States; but any family housing units acquired under authority of this subsection shall not exceed the cost limitations speci fied in this section for the project nor the limitations on size specified in section 2684 of title 10, United States Code. In no case may family housing units be aequired under this subsection through the exercise of eminent domain authority; and in no case may family housing units other than those authorized by this section be aequired in lieu of construction unless the acquisition of such units is hereafter specifically authorized by law. (c) Family housing units: Fort Polk, Louisiana, six hundred fifty-two units, $25,510,000. Naval Complex, Bangor, Washington, two hundred forty-two units, $9,375,000. Naval Station Keflavik, Iceland, one hundred sixty units, $17,200,000. Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field, Arizona, :forty units, $1,676,000. (d) Any amount specified in this section may, at the discretion of H. R.12384-12 the Secretary of Defense, or his designee, be increased by 10 per cen tum, if he determines that such increase (1) is r~uired for the sole purpose of meeting unusual variations in cost, and (2) could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the request for such amount was submitted to the Congress. The amounts authorized include the costs of shades, screens, ranges, refrigerators, and all other installed equipment and fixtures, the cost of the family housing unit, design, supervision, inspection, overhead, land acquisition, site preparation, and installation of utilities. ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING QUARTERS SEc. 502. The Secretary of Defense, or his designee, is authorized to accomplish alterations, additions, expansions, or extensions, not other wise authorized by law, to existing public quarters at a cost not to exceed- (1) for the Department of the Army, $12,000,000 for energy conservation projects; (2} :for the Department of the Navy, $7,000,000 for energy con servation projects; and (3) for the Department of the Air Force, $6,890,000 for energy conservation projects. RENTAL QUARTERS SEc. 503. (a) Section 515 of Public Law 84-161 (69 Stat. 324, 352), as amended, is :further amended by revising the third sentence to read as follows: "Expenditures for the rental of such housing facilities, including the cost of utilities and maintenance and operation, may not exceed: For the United States (other than Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam) and Puerto Rico, an average of $265 per month for each mili tary department or the amount of $450 per month for any one unit; and for Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam, an average of $335 per month for each military department, or the amount of $450 per month for any one unit.". , (b) Section 507(b) of Public Law 93-166 (87 Stat. 661, 676) is amended by striking out "$380" and "$670" in the first sentence and inserting in lieu thereof "$405" and "$700", respectively. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS SEc. 504. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law: (1) The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to settle claims regarding constructiOn of public quarters at the Naval Station, Charleston, South Carolina, in the amount of $1,675,000. (2) The Secretary of the Air Force is authorized to settle claims regarding construction of mobile home facilities at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, in the amount of $88,000, plus interest at 8% per centum from April 23, 1975, the date of settlement. HOUSING, APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATIONS SEc. 505. There is authorized to be appropriated for nse by the Secretary of Defense, or his designee, for military family housing as authorized by law for the following purposes: (1) For construction or acquisition of sole interest in family housmg, including demolition, authorized improvements to public quarters, minor construction, relocation of family housing, rental H. R. 12384-13 guarantee payments, and planning, an amount not to exceed $80,576,000. (2) For support of military family housing, including operat ing expenses, leasing, maintenance of real property, payments of principal and interest on mortgage debts incurred, payment to the Commodity Credit Corporation, and mortgage insurance premiums authorized under section 222 of the National Housing Act, as amended ( 12 U.S.C. 1715m), an amount not to exceed $1,223,947,000. TITLE VI-GENERAL PROVISIONS WAIVER OF RESTRICTIONS SEc. 601. The Secretary of eaCJh military department may proceed to establish or develop installations and facilities under this Act with out regard to section 3648 of t·he Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S. C. 529), and sections 4774 and 9774 of title 10, United States Code. The authority to place permanent or temporary improvements on land includes authority for surveys, administration, overhead, planning, and supe,rvision incident to construction. That authority may be exercised before title to the land is approved under section 355 of the Revised Statutes, as amended ( 40 U.S. C. 255), and even though the land is held temporarily. Tthe authority to acquire real estate or land includes authority to make surveys and to ac,quire land, and interests in land (including temporary use), by gift, purc:hase, exchange of Government-ow'lled land, or otherwise. APPROPRIATIONS LIMITATIONS SEC. 602. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the purposes of this Act, but appropriations for public works projects authorized by titles I, II, III, IV, and V shall not exceed- (1) for title I: Inside the United States, $419,837,000; outside the United States, $164,661,000; or a total of $584,498,000. , (2) for title II: Inside the United States, $481,580,000; outside the United States, $19,356,000; or a total of $500,936,000. (3) for title III: Inside the United States, $679,759,000; out side the United States, $56,650,000; or a total of $736,409.000. ( 4) for title IV: A total of $32,946,000. ' ( 5) for title V: Military Family Housing, $1,304,523,000. COST VARIATIONS SEc. 603. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), any amount specified in titles I, II, III, and IV of this Act may, at the discretion of the Secretary of the military department or Director of the defense a~ency concerned, be increased by 5 'per centum when inside the Umted States (other than Hawaii and Alaska) and by 10 per centum when outside the United States or in Hawaii and Alaska, if he determines that such increase ( 1) is required for the sole purpose of meeting unusual variations in cost, and (2) could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time the reque..'lt for such amount was submitted to the Congress. (b) When the amount named for any construction or acquisition in title I, II, III, or IV of this Act involves only one project at any military installation and t:Jhe Secretary of the military department or ...... ' ... \. ~ , ... H. R. 12384-14 Director of the defense agency concerned determines that the amount authorized must be increased by more than the applicable percentage prescribed in subsection (a), ihe may proceed with such construction or acquisition if the amount of the increase does not exceed by more than 25 per centum the amount named for such project by the Congress. (c) 'When the Secretary of Defense determines that any amount named in title I, II, III, or IV of this Act must be exceeded by more than the percentages permitted in subsections (a) or (b) to accom plish authorized construction or acquisition, the Secretary of the mili tary department or Director of the defense agency concerned may proceed with such construction or acquisition after a written report of the facts relating to the increase of suc;h amount, including a state ment of the reasons for such increase, has been submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Repre sentatives, and either (1) thirty days have elapsed from date of submission of such report, or (2) both committees :have indicated approval of such construction or acquisition. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in prior military construction authorizations Acts, the provisions of this subsection shall apply to such prior Acts. (d) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the total cost of all construction and acquisition in each such title may not exceed the total amount authorized to be appropriated in that title. (e) No individual project authorized under title I, II, III, or IV of this Act for any specifically listed military installation for which the current wo1·king estimate is $400,000 or more may be placed under contract if- (1) the approved scope of the project is reduced in excess of 25 per centum ; or (2) the current working estimate, based upon bids received, for the construction of such project exceeds by more than 25 per centum the amount authorized for such proJect by the Congress, until a written report of the facts relating to the reduced scope or increased cost of such project, including a statement of the rea~ sons for such reduction in scope or increase in cost, has been sub ' mitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives and either (A) thirty davs have elapsed from date of submission of such report, or (B) bOth committees have indicated approval of such reduction in scope or increase in cost, as the case may be. (f) The Secretary of Defense shall submit an annual report to the Congress identifying each individual project which has been placed under contract in the preceding twelve-month period and with respect to which the then current working estimate of the Department of Defense based upon bids received for such project exceeded the amount authorized by the Congress for that project by more than 25 per centum. The Secretary shall also include in such report each individ ual project with respect to which the scope was reduced by more than 25 per centum in order to permit contract award within the available authorization for such project. Such report shall include all pertinent cost information for each individual project, including the amount in dollars and percentage by which the current working estimate based on the contract price for the project exceeded the amount authorized for such project by the Congress. H. R. 12384-15 CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION SEc. 604. Contracts for construction made bv the United States for performance within the United States and its possessions under this Act shall be executed under the jurisdiction and supervision of the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, or the Naval Facili ties Engineering Command, Department of the Navy, or such other department or Government agency as the Secretaries of the military departments recommend and the Secretary of Defense approves to assure the most efficient, expeditious, and cost-effective accomplish ment of the construction herein authorized. The Secretaries of the military departments shall report annually to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives a breakdown of the dollar value of construction contracts completed by each of the several construction agencies selected together with the design, con struction supervision, and overhead fees charged by each of the several agents in the execution of the assigned construction. Further, such contracts (except architect and engineering contracts which, unless specifically authorized by the Congress, shall continue to be awarded in accordance with presently established procedures, customs, and practice) shall be a warded, insofar as practicable, on a competitive' basis to the lowest responsible bidder, if the national security will not be impaired and the a.ward is consistent with chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code. The Secretaries of the military departments shall report annually to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives with respect to all contracts awarded on other than a competitive basis to the lowest responsible bidder. Such reports shall also show, in the case of the ten architect-engineering firms which, in terms of total dollars, '';ere awarded the most business; the names of such firms; the total number of S('parate contracts awarded each such firm; and the total amount paid or to be paid in the case of each such action under all such contracts awarded such firm. REPEAL OF PRIOR .\UTHORIZATIOXS; EXCEPTIONS SEc. 605. (a) As of January 1, 1978, all authorizations for military public works, including family housing to be accomplished by the Secretary of a military department, in connection with the establish ment or development of installations and facilities, and all authoriza tions for appropriations therefor, that are contained in titles I, II, III, IV, and V of the Act of OctQber 7, 1975, Public Law 94-107 (89 Stat. 546), and all such authorizations contained in Acts approved before October 7, 1975, and not superseded or otherwise modified by a later authorization are repealed except~ (1) authorizations for public works and for appropriations therefor that are set forth in those Acts in the titles that contain the general provisions; (2) authorizations for public works projects as to which appro priated funds have been obligated for construction contracts, land acquisition, or payments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza tion, in whole or in part, before January 1, 1978, and authoriza tions for appropriations therefor. (b) Notwithstanding the repeal provisions of section 605 of the Act of October 7,1975, Public Law 94-107 (89 Stat. 546, 565), author izations for the following items shall remain in effect until January 1, 1979: H. R. 12384-16 ( 1) Defense Satellite Communications System construction in the amount of $1,054,000 at Stuttgart, Germany, authorized in section 101 of the Act of December 27, 1974 (88 Stat. 1747), as amended. ( 2) Cold storage warehouse construction in the amount of $1,215,000 at Fort Dix, New Jersey, authorized in section 101 of the Act of October 25, 1972 ( 86 Stat. 1135), as amended and extended in section 605(3) (B) of the Act of December 27, 1974 (88 Stat. 1762), as amended. (3) Land acquisition, Murphy Canyon in the amount of $3,843,000 at Naval Regional Medical Center, San Diego, Cali fornia, authorized in section 201 of the Act of December 27, 1974 (88 Stat. 1750), as amended. (4) Land acquisition in the amount of $800,000 at Naval Secu rity Group Activity, Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico, authorized in section 201 of the Act of December 27, 1974 (88 Stat. 1750), as amended. UNIT COST LIMITATIONS SEc. 606. None of the authority contained in titles L II, III, and IV of this Act shall be deemed to authorize any building construction project inside the United States in excess of a unit cost to be deter mined in proportion to the appropriate area construction cost index, based on the following unit cost limitations where the area construc tion index is 1.0 : ( 1) $39 per square foot for permanent barracks; (2) $42 per square foot for bachelor officer quarters; unless the Secretary of Defense, or his designee, determines that because of special circumstances, application to such project of the limitations on unit costs contained in this section is impracticable. Notwithstand ing the limitations contained in prior Military Construction Authori zation Acts on unit costs, the limitations on such costs contained in this section shall apply to all prior authorizations for such construc tion not heretofore repealed and for which construction contracts have not been a warded by the date of enactment of this Act. ' INCREASES FOR SOLAR HEATING AND SOLAR COOLING EQUIPMENT SEc. 607. The Secretary of Defense shall encourage the utilization of solar energy as a source of energy for projects authorized by this Act where utilization of solar energy would be practical and eco nomically feasible. In addition to all other authorized variations of cost limitations or floor area limitations contained in this Act or prior Military Construction Authorization Acts. the Secretary of Defense, or his designee, may permit increases in the cost limitations or floor area limitations by such amounts as may be necessary to equip any projects with solar heating and/or solar cooling equipment. LAND CONVEYANCE, NEW JERSEY SEc. 608. (a) The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to convey, without consideration, to the Airship Association, a nonprofit orga nization incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to that portion of the lands comprising the Naval Air Station, Lakehurst, New Jersey, described in subsection (b), for use as a permanent site for the museum described in subsection (c), subject to conditions of use set forth in such subsection. H. R. 12384-17 (b) The land authorized to be conveyed by subsection (a) is a cer tain parcel of land containing 13.98 acres, more or less, s1tuated in Ocean County, New Jersey, being a part of the Naval Air Station, Lakehurst, New Jersey, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning ·at a point on the westerly side of Ocean C(mnty Route Numbered 547, 205.40 feet northerly from the intersection of the center line of new road and the westerly side of Route Numbered 547 thence (1) north 10 degrees 14 minutes 19 seconds east, 770.25 feet along the westerly edge of road to a point thence (2) north 66 degrees 35 minutes 41 seconds west, 724.55 feet to a point thence (3) oouth 23 degrees 24 minutes 19 seconds west, 750 feet to a point thence ( 4) south 66 degrees 35 minutes 41 seconds east, 900 feet to the point and place of beginning. (c) The conveyance authorized by subsection (a) shall be subject to the following conditions and such other terms and conditions as the Secretary of the Navy, or his designee, shall determine necessary to protect the interests of the United States: (1) The lands so conveyed shall be used primarily for the con struction and operation of an airship museum to collect, preserve, and display to the publk materials, memorabilia, and other items of historical significance and interest relative to the development and use of the airship, and for purposes incidental thereto. (2) All right, title, and interest in and to such lands, and any improvements constructed thereon, shall revert to the United States, which shall have an immediate right of entry thereon, if the construction of the airship museum is not undertaken within five years from the date of such conveyance or if the lands eon veyed shall cease to be used for the purposes specified in paragraph ( 1). ( 3) All expenses for surveys and the preparation and execution of legal documents necessary or appropriate to carry out the pro visions of this section shall be borne by the Airship Association. LAND CONVEYANCE, WEST VIRGINIA , SEc. 609. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Secretary of Defense, or his designee, is authorized to convey to the city of South Oharleston, West Vi:rginia, subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary shall deem to be in the public interest, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a section of land located on the property formerly known as the South Charleston Naval Ordnance Plant, with improvements, such land consisting of approx imately 4.5 acres. In consideration of such conveyance by the Secretary, the city of South Charleston shall convey to the United States unen cumbered fee title to eight acres of land owned by the municipality, improved in a manner acceptable to the Secretary, and subject to such other conditions as are aooeptable to the Secretary. The exact acreages and legal descriptions of both properties are to be determined by accurate surveys as mutually agreed upon by the Secretary and the city of South Charleston. The Secretary is authorized to accept the lands so eonveyed to the United Sta!tes, which lands shall be admin istered by the Department of the Army. STUDIES OF REUSE OF MILITARY BASES SEc. 610. (a) Whenever a final deoision has been made to close any military installation ·located in the United States, Guam, or Puerto Rico and, because of the location, facilities, and other particular I • 't . H. R. 12384-18 characteristics of such installation, the Secretary of Defense deter mines that suoo installation may be suitable for some specific Federal or State use potentially beneficial to the Nation, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to conduct such studies, including, but not lim ited to, the preparation of an environmental impact statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with such installation and such potential use as may be necessary to provide information sufficient to make sound conclusions and recommendations regarding the possible use of such installation. (b), Any study con~ucted under authority of this se?tion shall be submitted to the President and the Congress together w1th such com ments and recommendations as the Secretary of Defense may deem appropriate. Such studies shall also be available to the public. • (c) As used in this section, the term "military installation" includes any camp, post, station, base, yard, or other installation under the juris diction of any military department. (d) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. Il\fPACT ASSISTANCE, NONPROFIT COOPERATIVES SEc. 611. N otwithstJanding section 7 of the Act of August 23, 1912 (31 U.S.C. 679), the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use any funds appropriated to carry out the provisions of section 610 of the Military Construction Act, 1971 ( 84 Stat. 1224) to reimburse nonprofit, mutual aid telephone cooperatives for their capital expenditures for the purchase and installation of nontactical communications equip ment and related facilities, to the extent the Secretary determines that ( 1) such expenditures are not otherwise recoverable by such coopera tives, (2) such expenditures were incurred as the direct result of the construction, installation, testing, and operation o:f the SAFEGUARD Antiballistic Missile System, and (3) such cooperatives, as a result of the deactivation and termination o£ such system, would sustain an unfair and excessive financial burden in the absence o£ the financial assistance authorized by this section. ' BASE REALINEMENTS SEc. 612. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no action may be taken prior to October 1, 1981, to effect or implement- ( 1) the closure of any military installation ; (2) any reduction in the authorized level of civilian personnel •at any military installation by more than one thousand civilian personnel or 50 per centum of the level of such personnel author ized as of March 1, 1976, or the end of the fiscal year immmediately preceding the fiscal year in which the Secretary o:f Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned notifies the Con gress that such installation is a candidate for closure or significant reduction, whichever occurs later; or H. R. 12384-19 (3) any construction, conversion, or rehabilitation at any other military installation (whether or not such installation is a mili tary installation as defined in subsection (b)) which will or may be required as a result of the relocation of civilian personnel to such other installation by reason of any closure or reduction to which this section applies; unless- ( A) the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned notifies the Congress in writing that such military installation is a candidate for closure or significant reduc tion; and then (B) a period of at least nine months expires following the date on which such notice was given, during which period the depart ment concerned has identified the full range of environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act o:f 1969, that may result from t1he proposed closure or reduction; and then (C) the Secretary of Defense or ,the Secretary of the military department concerned submits to the Committees on Armed Serv ices of the House of Representatives and the Senate his final decision to close or significantly reduce such installation and a detailed justification for his dec1sion, together with the estimated fiscal, economic, budgetary, environmental, strategic, and opera tional consequences of the proposed closure or reduction; and then (D) a period o:f at least ninety days expires following the date on whioh the justification referred to in clause (C) has been sub mitted to such committees. (b) For purposes of this section, the term "military installation" means any camp, post, station, base, yard, or other :facility under the authority of the Department of Defense- (1) which is located within any of the several States, the Dis trict of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or Guam; and (2) at which not less than five hundred civilian personnel are authorized to be employed. (c) For purposes of this section, the term "civilian personnel" ' means direct-hire permanent civilian employees of the Department of Defense. (d) This section shall not apply to any closure or reduction if the President certifies to the Congress &at sMh closure or reduction must be implemented for reasons of any mHitary emergency or national security or if such closure or reduction was publicly announced prior to January 1, 1976. NAVAL MUSEUM, CHARLESTON', SOUTH CAROLINA SEc. 613. The Congress hereby expresses its approval and encourage ment with respect to the establishment, by the State of South Carolina, of a naval and maritime museum in the city of Charleston, South Carolina, and recognizes the historical importance of such museum and the patriotic purpose it is intended to serve. H. R. 12384-20 AMENDJ\'IENT TO TITLE 1 0, lJNITED STATES CODE; REAL PROPERTY EXCIB.NGE SEc. 614. Section 2662(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new sentence as follows: "The report required by this subsection to be submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives concerning any report of excess real property described in clause ( 5) shall contain a certification by the Secretary concerned that he has considered the feasibility of exchanging such property for other real property author ized to be acquired for military purposes and has determined that the property proposed to be declared exce.ss is not suitable for such purpose.". SHORT TITLE SEc. 615. Titles I, II, III, IV, V, and VI of this Act may be cited as the "Military Construction Authorization Act, 1977". TITLE VII-GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES AUTHORIZATION FOR FACILITIES SEa. 701. Subject to chapter 133 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense may establish or develop additional facilities :for the Guard and Reserve Forces, including the acquisition of land there for, but the cost of such facilities shall not exceed- ( 1) For the Department of the Army : (a) Army National Guard of the United States, $54,745,000. (b) Army Reserve, $44,459,000. (2) For the Department of the Navy: Naval and Marine Corps Reserves, $21,800,000. (3) For the Department o:ftheAir Force: (a) Air National Guard of the United States, $33,900,000. (b) Air Force Reserve, $9,773,000. , WAIVER OF CER'l'AIN RESTRICTIO:!Ii'S SEc. 702. The Secretary of Defense may establish or develop instal lations and facilities under this title without regard to seetion 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 529), and sections 4774 and 9774 of title 10, United States Code. The authority to place perma nent or temporary improvements on lands includes authority for sur veys, administration, overhead, planning, and supervision incident to construction. That authority may be exercised before title to the land is approved under section 355 of the Revised Statutes, as amended ( 40 U.S.C. 255), and even though the land is held temporarily. The author ity to acqmre real estate or land includes authority to make surveys and II. It. 12~21 to acquire land, and interests in land (including temporary use), by gift, purchase, exchange of Government-owned land, or otherwise. SHORT TITLE SEC. 703. This title may be cited as the "Guard and Reserves Forces Facilities Authorization Act, 1977". Speaker of the House of Repre8entatives. Vice Pre8ident of the United States and Pre8ident of the Senate. ' July 2, 1976 Received from the White House a sealed envelope said to contain· H.R. 12384, "An Act to authorize certain construction at military installations and for other purposes," and a veto message by the President thereon. Time received ~ORD . (~ ~,.. '<•I TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 12384, a bill "To authorize certain construction at military installations and for other purposes." I regret that I must take this action because the bill is generally acceptable, providing a comprehensive construction program for fiscal year 1977 keyed to recognized military requirements. One provision, however, is highly objectionable, thus precluding my approval of the measure. Section 612 of the bill would prohibit certain base. closures or the reduction of civilian personnel at certain military installations unless the proposed action is reported to Congress and a period of nine months elapses during which time the military department concerned would be required to identify the full range of environmental · impacts of the proposed action, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Subsequently, the final decision to close or significantly reduce an installation covered under the bill would have to be reported to the , Armed Services Committees of the Congress together with a detailed justification for such decision. No action could be taken to implement the decision until the expiration of at least ninety days following submission of the detailed justification to the appropriate committees. The bill provides a limited Presidential waiver of the requirements of section 612 for reasons of military emergency or national security. This provision is also unacceptable from the stand- point of sound Government policy. It would substitute an arbitrary time limit and set of requirements for the current procedures whereby base closures and reductions are effected, procedures which include compliance with NEPA and adequately take into account all other relevant ? ~{ 2 considerations, and afford extensive opportunity for public and congressional involvement. By imposing unnecessary delays in base closures and reductions, the bill's requirements would generate a budgetary drain on the defense dollar which should be used to strengthen our military capabilities. Moreover, section 612 raises serious questions by its attempt to limit my powers over military bases. The President must be able, if the need arises, to change or reduce the mission at any military installation if and when that becomes necessary. The Department of Defense has undertaken over 2,700 actions to reduce, realign, and close military installations and activities since 1969. These actions have enabled us to sustain the combat capability of our armed forces while reducing annual Defense costs by more than $4 billion. For realignment proposals already announced for study, section 612 could increase fiscal year 1978 budgetary requirements for defense by $150 million and require retention, at least through fiscal year 1977, of approxi- I mately 11,300 military and civilian personnel positions not needed for essential base activities. The nation's taxpayers rightly expect the most defense possible for their tax dollars. I am certain Congress does not intend unnecessary or arbitrary increases in the tax burden of the American people. Numerous congres- sional reports on national defense demonstrate the desire ._.-- ~"·~~:;j?·-~'~,,, by the Congress to trim unnecessary defense spending and /, ;_ · - ·~~\ t"·· ~- . . ~ , personnel. I cannot approve legislation that would result·. ·~ / \ .•' in waste and inefficiency at the expense of meeting our essential military requirements. THE WHITE HOUSE, July 2, 1976.