the provisions of Section 236 of the National Housing Act subject to availability of FY 1971 appropriations. Legislation authorizing FHA to stipulate military preference in Section 236 projects was enacted December 31, 1970, and we are now in a position to proceed with the program. A memorandum of agreement between Defense and HUD was executed in March and implementing instructions to the field have been promulgated by both agencies. We believe that the consummation of this agreement is a truly significant achievement which will produce many millions of dollars worth of adequate community assets for lower income military families. And, this will be done at no cost or obligation to the Department of Defense.

EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT AT GEORGE AIR FORCE BASE

I know the Committees continue to have an extensive interest in the status of our experimental housing project at George Air Force Base, California, which was authorized and appropriated under the Military Construction Act of 1969. We are pleased to inform the Committees that construction of these units is proceeding on schedule. As expected, we have already learned some lessons, and in each instance they have served to improve the concept originally reported. As the project proceeds, we become more confident that substantial savings both in dollars and particularly in the rate of productivity-can be gained in selected future projects based on this system, and that the system will have applicability to the private housing market as well as to future Department of Defense housing construction programs. Mr. Fliakas will go into greater detail on this subject when he presents his statement to the Committee.

BASE REALIGNMENTS

It will be recalled that in October 1969 and March 1970, the Department of Defense announced details of 678 specific actions to consolidate, reduce, realign or close military activities and installations in the United States and abroad. These actions were required as a result of reductions in the 1970 budget and in preparation for the implementation of the FY 1971 budgetary plan.

Based upon current determination of essential Defense program and personnel requirements as reflected in the FY 1972 budget and in anticipation of favorable Congressional action on the FY 1972 funds requested, we have no plans for any further major base closure or major reduction actions in the United States. However, there will be a need to make essential force realignments in order to better position our forces; to make adjustments caused by our reduced training and force requirements resulting from our redeployment from SEA; to take certain actions as a result of force modernization; and to make normal prudent management adjustments in order to streamline operations and reduce overhead.

There will also be a need to make minor reductions in civilian employees at various installations in order to adjust workloads. We do not expect these civilian adjustments to be extensive. In general, reductions to meet authorized civilian personnel end strengths will be accomplished by attrition to the maximum extent possible.

During early March 1971, the Services and the Defense Supply Agency informed the Congress of a number of base realignment actions being implemented for the reasons I have stated above. These actions involved the reduction and realignment of Army and Air Force air defense activities; Air Force SAC B-52 and associated tanker support realignments; adjustments in Air Force airlift units; the realignment of Air Force air rescue units and other miscellaneous activities. In addition, some Navy squadrons have been announced for repositioning and some for inactivation. A number of Navy ships at various ports in the United States have also been announced for inactivation. The Army, as part of its force level reduction has also announced the inactivation of certain military units at bases throughout the United States. Other minor management actions were also announced.

A number of base closures were included in the various Service announcements. Most of these are small bases, the closure of which will have no serious impact on the surrounding community. The most significant bases which will be closed are Perrin Air Force Base, Texas-which is being closed due to reduced Air Force air defense training requirements; and Clinton County Air Force Base, Ohio-which is being closed by the Air Force because its mission can better be performed at another nearby Air Force base.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION

At this point, I would like to discuss briefly our natural resources conservation program. As stewards of the third largest land area controlled by the execative agencies, the Department of Defense continues to recognize its responsibility for the application of sound management principles which will insure the conservation, preservation, and protection of all natural resources at installations under its jurisdiction. We are attempting in every way to assist in the solation of environmental problems. There is a vital concern at all Defense levels in noise abatement, fish and wildlife management, soil conservation and recreational opportunities for the civilian populace on military lands. To that end, 238 Cooperative agreements have been developed between the military installation commanders, the State agency involved, and the Bureau of Sports, Fisheries and Wildlife. These arrangements cover over 19 million of the 28.9 million acres of land and water that we control. Nearly four million visitors last year took advantage of the recreational opportunities offered at the 90 major installations open to public hunting and fishing and other recreational use.

Interagency agreements have also been consummated with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior governing use of natural resources at Defense installations. Defense lands not needed for the time or not actively being used for continuous military requirements have been made available for joint civilian-military park and other recreational use. New timber production has been fostered on over 2,300,000 acres of Defense land.

Our conservation and natural resources programs have been totally financed by the sale of hunting and fishing permits by the military installations as authorized by Public Law 86-797. Although budgetary ceilings have limited our conservation activities to some degree, we will continue to place major emphasis on this program and will cooperate with all State, local and Federal agencies in fostering sound conservation programs.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

Another item of major interest to these Committees which I would like to discuss is our program on control of environmental pollution.

In keeping with the increased national tempo to improve environmental quality, we have again accelerated our program to abate air and water pollution at all our installations. This year's bill includes $129.9 million to eliminate polJution at 173 installations located in the United States and possessions. This effort represents a 75% increase over the funding requested for this purpose last

year.

The program proposes $61.9 million to provide treatment at 81 installations for sanitary and industrial water-borne wastes, or if feasible connection to muni ipal systems. The air pollution control projects which total $68.0 million are designed to meet air quality standards at 92 installations which have specific problems. These projects are basically concerned with heating plant fuel conversions to eliminate sulfur and fly ash, facilities for processing industrial exhausts, and construction of incinerators. So that you may have a better picture of our programs for air and water pollution for FY's 1970, 1971 and 1972, the following chart may be helpful:

NEW AUTHORIZATION FOR AIR AND WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROJECTS

All air and water pollution projects in the FY 1972 program have been coordinated with the Environmental Protection Agency, and we will utilize the best techniques available through their research and development program.

The continued strong support of these Committees for this important program will permit us to reach the goal of complying with required air and water quality standards at all our installations in the near future.

RESERVE COMPONENTS

Within the FY 1972 Military Construction Program, we are seeking a total of $80.3 million in new authorization to accommodate major construction needs of the Reserve components of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force in FY 1972. The total of this authorization is reflected in the following table by Military Services:

This total of $80.3 million compares with an FY 1971 request of $37.5 million to support Reserve activities, and reflects an increase in excess of 100% over last year's request. This substantially increased emphasis in support of the Reserve components is directly related to the scheduled reduction in Active Forces, and a corollary necessity for increased reliance on the readiness capability of our Reserve Forces. Public Law 90-168, "The Reserve Forces Bill of Rights and Vitalization Act," clearly expressed the concern of Congress and its intent that the Reserve Forces be allocated the necessary personnel, equip ment and facilities to fully meet their mobilization requirements, and to constitute a significant and viable force in the total military resources available to the Nation.

The Reserve Facilities Program, which we present today, represents but one example of the increased attention which the Services are now directing toward assuring that the Reserve components are brought to a satisfactory readiness posture as rapidly as possible. Unfortunately, in preceding years, and most recently because of other priorities necessary to support more urgent military needs, the Reserve Facilities Program has accumulated a substantial backlog of construction requirements on the order of $1 billion which must be met in future years. We are determined to liquidate this backlog as rapidly as is possible and consistent with other military priorities and available funds. Toward this end, we have established a phased ten-year program for accomplishing this task. The FY 1972 authorization request represents our first substantial increment against that program. We hope that in the following fiscal years we can stay on this schedule and secure an orderly liquidation of the total backlog.

CONSTRUCTION AGENCIES

Last year I gave a brief summary to the Committees of special study efforts which had been instituted to investigate the current Department of Defense design and construction management procedures and to make recommendations for improvements. The most significant study was accomplished by the Building Research Advisory Board, National Academy of Sciences. We received the final report from this study on the first of March and it is now being reviewed. The report is very comprehensive, addressing all aspects of the acquisition of military construction, from master planning to final construction execution. It will take some time for the Department of Defense to complete its evaluation of this comprehensive study and its recommendations. However, a copy of the report was provided to each of these Committees so that the information on the basic proposal would be available. We will, of course, advise the Committee of any major changes to our present military construction procedures which may be developed as a result of our decisions concerning the BRAB study recommendations.

PROGRAM EXECUTION

We have continued our efforts to improve the efficiency and reduce the costs involved in the execution of the military construction program. In this regard, the reduction in the number of field activities of each of the two DoD construction agents, the Army Corps of Engineers and Naval Facilities Engineering Command, was effected during FY 1970 and we believe that these reductions will provide more efficient utilization of the technical expertise of the organizations. We are confident that these efficiencies will be reflected by a reduction in the cost for design and construction management by the agents. The Army Corps of Engineers has, in fact, been able to reduce its flat rate charge for the supervision and administration of construction contracts from 5.8 percent to 5.6 percent, effective January 1, 1971.

As I discussed with you last year in my testimony, it is our policy to make full utilization of the two DoD construction agents and to allocate to the Air Force, upon its request, projects for execution in which the nature and location of the project makes such allocation desirable. I believe that this policy of full utilization of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Naval Facilities Engineering Command is essential to the achievement of our mutual goal of obtaining the most efficient, expeditious and cost effective accomplishment of the total Military Construction Program. We believe that by thus concentrating our Military Construction Program execution with the two primary DoD construction agents, we enhance our opportunities for achieving further improvements in efficiency and reduced costs for design and construction management. Additionally, this policy has the purpose of affording visibility of the projected workloads to the primary agents so that they can most effectively plan for the efficient utilization of their personnel and resources.

As I have previously indicated, we expect to continue to utilize the Air Force capability to accomplish the design and construction management of a limited number of appropriate projects when it is desirable and advantageous. I am conducting discussions with the Service Assistant Secretaries for Installations and Logistics to develop procedures which we hope will facilitate the ready identification of projects which can be most effectively accomplished by the Air Force by use of its available resources.

The Department of Defense is committed to a policy of procuring our required military facilities in the most effective manner possible. We are pleased with the progress which has been made by the Military Departments in adapting and identifying those new management contracting techniques which assist in achieving this goal. I am sure that the Military Departments in their respective sessions at this hearing will expand upon their progress and their future plans concerning the use of one and two step procurement procedures, the use of simplified designs and site adaptations, the exploration of the use of industrialized building technology, and other innovative techniques.

In conclusion of my remarks concerning our military construction program execution, I would like to briefly address some of the expressions of concern in this area which were included in the reports of your Committee on last year's military construction program. First, I can assure the Committees that neither the Department of Defense, nor the Army Corps of Engineers, nor the Naval Facilities Engineering Command has a policy of subsidizing in-house design staffs in order to retain a capacity to respond to possible emergency requirements. For the past two years only 20 percent of the total projects handled by the Corps of Engineers have been accomplished by in-house staff and only 10 percent of the designs handled by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command have been accomplished in-house. We believe that the amount of design which is accomplished by our in-house personnel is reasonable and proper both in terms of the relative cost of these efforts, and the necessity of maintaining the technical competence required of these professional architects and engineers in the supervision of architect-engineer designs and other technical duties. Finally, in regard to the use of flat rate charge for the supervision, inspection and overhead costs involved in the construction of military facilities by the two DoD construction agents, I will forward to the Committee a letter detailing our position on this practice. I will indicate in my letter that the present procedures utilized are the most efficient manner of handling these costs in terms of the requirements of the construction agents and of the Department of Defense.

63-842-71-pt. 2- -5

VIETNAMIZATION

Earlier I mentioned that construction in support of the program to improve and modernize the Armed Forces of the Republic of Vietnam is proceeding well. Of the $315 million provided for such items as the Base Depot Upgrade Program and the ARVN Ammunition Improvement Plan, $217 million represents completed work-the remainder will be completed by the end of FY 1972. The Lines of Communication/Road Improvement Program, not included in the above figures but necessary to Vietnamization, is now about 70 percent complete. Construction of 500 kilometers has been undertaken by the ARVN engineers. These engineer troops are doing a fine job. Progress is also being made in the transfer of U.S. bases now excess to our needs. These activities, coupled with training programs for facilities maintenance, road construction, and other engineer functions, all reaffirm that the end of our military construction support program is now firmly in sight.

I am most appreciative of the opportunity to appear before you today to present the military construction authorization request for FY 1972 and to discuss subjects in the installations and construction area which are of interest to the Committees. I have with me Ed Sheridan, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and Housing), and Perry Fliakas, Director for Housing Programs. These gentlemen, their staffs, and I are available to answer your questions and would be pleased to provide such additional information as you may request.

Thank you.

The Active Forces portion of the Military Construction Budget Program for FY 1972 totals $1,252.3 million for the three Departments and Defense Agencies. This portion of the program is related to the regular military establishment and provides for facilities and installations necessary to meet operational, logistical and other mission requirements of the three Military Departments and the Defense Agencies, other than family housing. For purposes of easy summation, we have grouped the total request into nine standard Department of Defense construction categories. I would like to describe the principal items contained in each of these categories for the individual Services. I will omit reference to the Defense Agencies in these descriptions inasmuch as I will summarize their requirements separately at the end of this presentation. The first of the categories is:

Operational and Training, $314.3 million

The operational facilities contain essential airbase, fleet operations support, communications, security, command and control, and other operational facilities