[Senate Hearing 105-275]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[DOCID: f:39863]
S. Hrg. 105-275
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2016
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1998,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-863 cc WASHINGTON : 1998
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CONRAD BURNS, Montana TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Military Construction
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina HARRY REID, Nevada
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio) ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Staff
Sid Ashworth
C. Richard D'Amato, Minority
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 11, 1997
Department of Defense:
Department of the Navy....................................... 1
Department of the Air Force.................................. 35
Thursday, May 8, 1997
Department of Defense:
Department of the Army....................................... 61
Defense agencies:
U.S. Special Operations Command.......................... 101
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Services
Operations and Readiness............................... 101
Defense Logistics Agency................................. 101
Defense Finance and Accounting Service................... 101
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:37 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Stevens, Murray, Reid, and Inouye.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT B. PIRIE, JR., ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MAJ. GEN. JOSEPH STEWART, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, INSTALLATIONS
AND LOGISTICS, U.S. MARINE CORPS
REAR ADM. DAVID NASH, CHIEF, NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING
COMMAND, U.S. NAVY
CAPT. JOHN BRUNELLI, DEPUTY CHIEF, NAVAL RESERVE, U.S. NAVY
OPENING STATEMENT OF CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. Good morning and I will call the committee
to order. Senator Murray, the ranking member, is on her way.
The subcommittee this morning will hear testimony on
military construction, family housing, BRAC, and Reserve
programs for the Navy and the Air Force. I welcome this morning
our new ranking member of military construction, Senator Murray
of Washington State, and thank you for coming. I look forward
to working with her and her staff as we work our way through
the 1998 military construction programs.
We are pleased to hear from the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Installations and Environment, Robert B. Pirie, and we
welcome you this morning. It is great to have you with us
again. I certainly thank you for coming.
Would you please introduce the gentlemen that you brought
with you this morning.
Mr. Pirie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With me this morning are: Rear Adm. Dave Nash, who is the
Chief of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command; and Maj.
Gen. Joe Stewart, who is the Deputy Chief of Staff of the
Marine Corps for Installations and Logistics; and Capt. John
Brunelli, who is the Deputy Chief of the Naval Reserve.
Senator Burns. We thank you and want to commend you for
your commitment to the quality of life of our sailors and our
marines, as well as their families. We recognize the Navy has a
significant challenge to maintain the momentum in an area that
we want to work with you to achieve those objectives.
I think our missions have changed in the last 10 years. We
continue to appropriate and be concerned with the quality of
life of our marines and sailors. We know that they are probably
the most mobile of all of our military troops and we want to
make sure that they have everything that they need in order to
make a really fighting outfit like they are known to be.
We have asked you to address the fiscal year of 1998, the
construction request for Navy housing, a portion of the base
closure account, and the request for the Navy reserves. So if
you have your opening statement, and I would tell you that your
entire statement will be made part of the record, and thank you
for coming this morning. You may proceed.
Mr. Pirie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, I
will just hit some of the highlights.
Senator Reid. I wonder if I could----
Senator Burns. Oh, I am sorry. I better do this. I better
recognize my ranking member this morning. Senator Murray, I am
sorry.
STATEMENT OF PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate your arranging this early hearing on our Navy and
Air Force military construction, BRAC, and housing programs,
and I am very pleased to serve as your ranking member on this
very important subcommittee, and I look forward to working with
you, Mr. Chairman, and all of the committee in much the same
fashion as my predecessor Senator Reid, who is here with us
today, worked so successfully with you last year.
The programs the subcommittee oversees are crucial,
focusing as they do on the quality of life of our uniformed
personnel here and abroad and on the vital infrastructure that
allows our forces to operate with assurance as the world's sole
superpower. These programs allow in the long run to defend our
interests and those of our allies and friends across an
increasingly confusing and complicated world scene.
I recall that this committee was able to mark up and report
its annual bills out, get them through the Senate and the
Congress and to the President's desk very early in the process.
Even though the committee added some $617 million to the
request last year, the President wisely signed it. It was
overwhelmingly supported in the Senate, much of that due to
your excellent work, Mr. Chairman, in putting it together. I
hope that we can repeat that performance this year.
Mr. Chairman, judging from the President's request, it
looks like we are being invited to rewrite much of the budget
submitted. The request for our Guard and Reserve program is, as
in the past several years, largely inadequate and perhaps
deliberately so. For the Guard and Reserve we appropriated $411
million last year. The request for fiscal year 1998 is for less
than $173 million. So either the administration is preparing to
put the Guard and Reserve out of business or, more likely, it
expects us to add to the budget to fund it appropriately, just
as the committee did last year.
I have no doubt that we will together do just that. We
admonished the administration last year not to repeat the
budget history of underfunding the Guard and Reserves,
anticipating a huge plus-up by the committee, but it seems to
have done just that.
First, the overall request for the Guard and Reserve is
two-thirds less than the amount we appropriated for fiscal year
1997. In order to match last year's amount, we would have to
add nearly $239 million to the budget.
Second, Mr. Chairman, the budget for housing has been
reduced by some 13 percent from last year's appropriated
amount. This is the heart of quality of life and I am not
certain that we can leave it at the requested level. I know
that the Department is attempting to put into place a new
public-private housing initiative, the Department of Defense
family housing improvement fund, which allows the private
sector to participate in our housing programs. I fully support
that initiative, and indeed one of the first of two of these
programs has just been announced at a naval base at Everett,
WA.
But this program is in its infancy and I am not certain
there is any justification for the substantial reduction in the
budget for family housing.
Third, Mr. Chairman, I have looked through this budget and
I have found that the only category which actually experiences
an increase over last year is for NATO infrastructure. The
request is slightly over last year's amount, but is greater
than the entire amount requested for the Guard and Reserves. I
have to ask, what is wrong with this picture?
We gut the American National Guard and Reserve and plus-up
the amounts for allied construction in Europe. And I thought
the cold war was over.
Having said all this, Mr. Chairman, I warmly greet Messrs.
Pirie and Coleman, Assistant Secretaries of the Navy and the
Air Force. Each of them have been most helpful to this
committee in the past and I know that they are concerned about
the budget problems that I have just cited, and I know that
whatever can be done to correct them, each of us will do so.
So I welcome all of you back before us and, Mr. Chairman, I
look forward to working with you this year.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Murray.
Now my good friend from Nevada in this matter, and we have
been through these wars before and plan to go through them
again. Senator Reid from Nevada.
STATEMENT OF HARRY REID
Senator Reid. Chairman Burns, thank you very much.
The reason I wanted to drop by today is to express publicly
how much I enjoyed working with Chairman Burns. This bill on
two separate occasions has been brought through the Congress by
Senator Burns and, hopefully with my assistance, we have been
able to get the bill to the President. Our military
construction bills were the earliest and first signed bills of
any of the appropriations bills these past 2 years. Most of
that is due to Chairman Burns' ability to work with his
colleagues and those on the other side of the aisle.
I just want to say to Senator Burns how much I appreciate
having had the opportunity to work with him.
I say to my colleague Senator Murray, she has done a lot of
the same things that I have done. She has had the experience of
working with the legislative branch, which is a difficult bill,
and now she has the opportunity to work on this bill. I think
these bills are both extremely important.
I want to reiterate what Senator Burns has said about how
the Guard and Reserve has been neglected. Some day we are going
to just follow the submission of the President and then see
what happens. We should probably do that except it would be, in
my opinion, too drastic. It is just unfair to the Guard and
Reserve.
Especially, I do not think the American public would
understand when, if you look through the budget, you find the
only category that maintains the same level of funding this
year is for NATO infrastructure. It is a little hard for me to
justify that we are going to spend more money for NATO
infrastructure and have these huge cuts for Guard and Reserve.
So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that with your attention you
will again direct money to the Guard and Reserve Forces, which
in my opinion are a very key component of making our military
the mightiest in the world.
I look forward to working with you and Senator Murray in
this Congress and the Congresses to come.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much and thanks for the work
of both of you. It really is a pleasure to work with Senator
Reid and Senator Murray. I am sure we will get it to the
President first this time too, so we can be on vacation when
everybody else is still working. We will do that.
I have a statement from Senator Craig that I would like to
put in the record at this time.
Mr. Secretary, thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Larry E. Craig
Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to be a member of the
Appropriations Committee and on this very important Subcommittee for
Military Construction. Although military construction represents a
small portion of the overall defense budget, it is the only portion
that touches everyone within the service and their families.
Every type of facility and installation contributes to the quality
of life. High quality installations contribute to personnel and family
readiness, which translates directly to combat capability. That is why
the success of your installations is just as important as your next
generation of new technology.
Mr. Pirie, I welcome you and note the Navy's ongoing efforts to
replace many antiquated facilities with a single composite facility at
specific installations. Such a composite engineering and support
facility is currently being constructed at the Naval Surface Warfare
Center at Bayview, Idaho. This effort will save future moneys by
reduced utilities and maintenance costs, necessary to operate the older
facilities.
Likewise, Mr. Coleman, I welcome you and the efforts the Air Force
has put forward in developing the new enhanced training range in Idaho.
We are working closely with your Air Force team, the Bureau of Land
Management, our communities and environmentalists to ensure that the
future range becomes a valuable combat resource and a good neighbor to
the community. I believe that ranges can rival the importance of as our
next air superiority fighter, and high quality ranges can only be
accomplished with solid planning and programming.
With the completion of the range, Mt. Home Air Force Base in Idaho,
which the Air Force considers one of the most successful composite
wings today, will be the model installation and wing for the Air Force
of the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I look
forward to working with you to provide funding adequate for high
quality installations, necessary housing and environmental protection
for our lands. This the least a grateful Nation can do for our service
personnel and their families.
statement of robert b. pirie
Mr. Pirie. Thanks. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Murray, and Senator Reid. I am really very glad to be here this
morning to present the Navy's military construction, family
housing, and base closure implementation program for----
Senator Burns. Pull the microphone up.
Mr. Pirie [continuing]. For fiscal 1998. Is that better?
Senator Burns. Yes.
statement summary
Mr. Pirie. Just to summarize some of the main points in my
formal testimony, our fiscal year 1998 Milcon, family housing,
and BRAC request runs about $2.8 billion in total. That is down
some $800 million from the fiscal year 1997 level of $3.6
billion because in the environment of downsizing, fiscal
stringency, and the need to beef up our investment accounts.
Our judgment is that this is about all we can afford in this
area.
There is enormous and continuing pressure to reduce overall
infrastructure costs and to increase our force modernization.
The fiscal year 1998 Milcon budget is down some $200
million from fiscal year 1997, and that is something that I am
not particularly happy about, but, in fact, we could not
sustain, given the other pressures within our budget, the
fiscal year 1997 level. We focus projects on those that support
military readiness needs, and that includes quality of life.
About one-third of the fiscal year 1998-99 budget is for BQ
construction. It will provide an additional 5,676 spaces and
replace some 1,723 old substandard spaces in BQ's.
All permanent party BQ's in the Navy that are built new
will be of the one plus one standard. The marines will replace
their oldest and worst facilities using an alternative called
two plus zero, which in our judgment is the fastest and best
way to get the most marines into some acceptable dormitories.
The fiscal year 1998 family housing budget is down about
$200 million from fiscal year 1997. The primary reduction is in
the area of new construction, and this is a result of a
decision we made to scale back the acquisition of houses that
the Government would own and operate. We looked in depth at the
cost of housing our sailors and marines in the private sector
with housing allowances versus in Government-owned and operated
homes. We have concluded that building and operating Government
houses is not a good deal either for the taxpayer or the
average sailor or marine.
It costs about $15,000 a year to operate and maintain a
Government-owned house on the average. We pay our members not
in Government housing about $8,000 a year in allowances, to
which they add about $2,000 a year on the average from their
own pockets to get decent housing.
Our research indicates that in many locations the private
sector can provide appropriate housing at a price much closer
to the allowance figure than to what it costs for a Government
house. We think it is a good idea at this point to go slow on
Government-provided housing and to explore the possibilities
open to us in public-private ventures and in enhanced
allowances.
Last year's BAQ increase and VHA floor are an enormous help
in this area, and this was something we are very grateful to
the Congress for providing. The Office of the Secretary of
Defense is now preparing a report and recommendations to remedy
some of the known defects in the current allowance indexing
methodology.
The Navy is making public-private ventures a reality. We
had a groundbreaking last December for 404 homes in the Corpus
Christi, TX, area. Occupancy will begin this November.
We provided congressional notification last month for 185
homes in Everett, WA. The Navy is a limited partner in this
endeavor and contributing $5.9 million. The general partner
contributes about $12.9 million. We expect to sign that
agreement this month and have occupancy of these houses in May
1998.
Both projects give sailors and marines preference for
renting and a rent reduction of approximately $100 a month
under comparable homes in the locale.
base closure and realignment
With respect to base closure and realignment, the fiscal
year 1998 BRAC budget is down about $400 million from fiscal
year 1997, primarily because of lower BRAC Milcon needs. By the
end of the year 2000 we will have invested $10 billion in the
implementation of four rounds of base closure. By that time we
will already have saved $15 billion, for a net savings of $5
billion, and we will save $2.6 billion a year every year
thereafter.
We are now on the down slope of BRAC implementation. We
have already completed 66 percent of all mandated closures and
realignments. Thirty-one more are scheduled this year,
including big ones like Long Beach Naval Shipyard and the Naval
Air Station at Alameda.
Fiscal year 1998 is the last year with significant BRAC
construction requirements. Our BRAC budget is transitioning
from a closure and realignment phase to the completion of
environmental cleanup and the disposition of the property. We
are, of course, committed to the cleanup of all BRAC property,
but we give priority in funding to sites with near-term reuse
potential.
The general area of BRAC this year has seen the
privatization of the Naval Air Warfare Center in Indianapolis
and the Naval Ordnance Station in Louisville. These actions
have saved the taxpayer money, saved jobs in the area, and
opened the possibility of continued productive use of the
installations under the aegis of local redevelopment
authorities.
We are pleased with this result because it shows that we
can, working together with communities, get past the trauma of
BRAC rapidly.
We are pursuing a number of initiatives to reduce
infrastructure support costs, including outsourcing,
privatization, and regionalization of functions. Details of
these activities are provided in my full testimony, Mr.
Chairman, and that concludes my summary.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert B. Pirie, Jr.
Good day, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Robert B.
Pirie, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and
Environment. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on the
Department of the Navy's installations and facilities programs.
My statement will cover a number of areas:
--The need for quality Naval facilities;
--The Department of the Navy's overall infrastructure budget;
--Program highlights of our base closure implementation, military
construction, and family housing programs;
--Meeting the housing challenge; and
--The need for further infrastructure efficiencies.
the need for quality naval shore facilities
Naval Forces--Defending U.S. National Security
Naval forces provide unique capabilities in defending our national
security interests around the world. Able to provide forward presence,
power projection, sea control, maritime superiority, strategic
deterrence, and strategic sealift, the Navy and Marine Corps team
continues to conduct operations around the world, 24 hours a day, every
day of the year. On any given day, roughly 30 percent of the Navy and
Marine Corps operating force, consisting of more than 50,000 men and
women aboard 100 ships, is deployed throughout the world. Last year,
Navy ships made over 1,600 port visits to 99 nations and conducted 160
major multinational and bilateral exercises with 64 different
countries. Naval operations ranged from providing humanitarian care in
Bosnia, to promoting regional stability and freedom of navigation in
the Straits of Formosa between China and Taiwan, to suppressing air
defenses in the skies over Iraq.
Well-trained, highly motivated people are our most important asset
in maintaining this military capability. We need to attract, properly
train, outfit, and retain top caliber people from across the United
States if we expect to maintain a fully responsive military capability
to support our national goals.
Shore Facilities--the Gateway to the Sea
Our shore facilities are the gateway to the sea. They are the home
base for maintaining the readiness of our Naval forces. They provide
the daily ``at work,'' ``at home,'' and ``at play'' locations for our
Sailors and Marines when they are not at sea. Whether it is piers that
provide berthing, electrical power, and support facilities for ships in
homeport; hangars that shelter aircraft; training facilities and ranges
where Sailors and Marines hone their war fighting skills; shipyards
that provide the industrial capability for ship repairs; or the housing
that our Sailors, Marines and their families call home--all are a
critical ingredient in our ability to deploy Naval forces when needed.
I know this Committee understands how high quality shore facilities
bring out the best in our people. Our mutual goal is to provide quality
shore facilities to support the current and future readiness of U. S.
Naval forces.
Investing in the Shore Infrastructure
Our facilities are old. Nearly half were constructed between 1931
and 1950. We are devoting about 1.7 percent of current plant value to
real property maintenance. The Center for Naval Analyses concluded that
we must invest about 2.0 percent of current plant value each year to
maintain the present condition of our facilities. Often, our repair and
maintenance choices are limited to short-term cash flow alternatives
rather than long-term investment strategies. Our military construction
and family housing budget represent only 2.3 percent of the Department
of the Navy fiscal year 1998 budget. The current critical backlog of
maintenance and repair (BMAR) is $3.0 billion, and is projected to grow
to $3.7 billion in fiscal year 1998.
Unfortunately, we cannot afford to invest more in our shore
infrastructure. Budget constraints, the need to modernize the remaining
force structure for the future, existing pockets of excess shore
capacity, and the potential for additional downsizing limit larger
infrastructure investments. We have been able to invest only limited
funds to support new and expanding mission needs.
While I would like to see us investing more money in our
facilities, our situation in the facilities business is certainly no
worse than that of other parts of the Department of the Navy. As you
know, it is very important that we recapitalize our force structure. I
strongly support this priority.
infrastructure budget request
Facilities Investment Strategy
The Secretary of the Navy must carefully balance many competing
demands. Our shore infrastructure investment strategy consists of:
--Implementing the decisions of the four rounds of Defense Base
Closures and Realignments (BRAC) to attain the expected savings
and efficiencies;
--Investing in military construction projects that support readiness;
--Enhancing the quality of life of our Sailors, Marines and their
families;
--``Holding the line'' on Base Operations Support (BOS) and
Maintenance of Real Property (MRP) funds; and
--Pursuing further shore infrastructure efficiencies.
Fiscal year 1998-99 Infrastructure Budget Request
This Subcommittee, and your colleagues in Congress, supported
significant increases last year. The $9.6 billion added to the
Department of Defense's topline budget included $209 million in
Military Construction, Navy, and $96 million in Family Housing, Navy,
above the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request. We are grateful
for the additional funds which will allow us to build important new
projects such as the BEQ at Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay,
Hawaii, and to renovate existing facilities such as the pier electrical
upgrades at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia.
However, affordability and other budget priorities prevented the
Department of the Navy from sustaining that higher level of funding
into the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 budget for military
construction, and family housing. Our fiscal year 1998 military
construction budget request of $554 million is on par with our fiscal
year 1997 budget request of $536 million. Our $1,255 million family
housing budget request maintains our focus on fixing what we own, but
reduces new construction. We have reduced our base closure budget
request, not because of affordability, but as a result of having
completed much of the construction requirements needed to relocate
forces. Our BRAC budget is now transitioning from one with large
construction and relocation costs to one that is focused on
environmental cleanup and disposal of property.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military construction........... 569 745 554 491
Family housing.................. 1,573 1,514 1,255 1,272
Base closure.................... 2,496 1,375 991 605
BOS/MRP......................... 4,344 4,091 4,015 4,028
---------------------------------------
Total..................... 8,982 7,725 6,815 6,396
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will now discuss our budget request in greater detail.
brac implementation
Implementation of the Four Rounds of BRAC
The base closure process is a challenging one for the Department of
the Navy and for the many communities who have hosted our ships,
aircraft, Sailors and Marines for so many years. Yet it is one we must
pursue if we are to properly size our shore infrastructure to reflect
the smaller force structure of the Post Cold War era. As you know,
excess capacity in our shore facilities creates a significant financial
drain on the Department of the Navy's budget.
We are implementing four rounds of base closure as directed by law,
the first was in 1988 under the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-526), and
three additional rounds in 1991, 1993, and 1995, under the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510). As a result
of these decisions, we are implementing a total of 178 actions
consisting of 46 major closures, 89 minor closures, and 43
realignments.
BRAC Implementation Strategy
Our implementation strategy focuses first on achieving operational
closure at each military installation selected for closure as quickly
as possible. By that, I mean all mission equipment and military
personnel (with the exception of a small caretaker cadre) have been
disbanded or relocated to the ``receiving'' location and the military
mission has ceased. Second, we seek to expeditiously cleanup and
dispose of BRAC property to support local communities in their
conversion and redevelopment efforts.
Rapid operational closure benefits both the Navy and the base
closure communities. The faster we close a base, the sooner we attain
savings. Operational closure substantially reduces the costs for
utilities, fire and police protection services, supplies, waste
handling and disposal, administrative support personnel, and a host of
other landlord functions. The savings generated by not having to
operate and maintain this excess infrastructure are significant. Annual
savings first exceeded annual implementation costs in fiscal year 1996,
and total savings will exceed total costs in fiscal year 1998. By the
end of fiscal year 2001, when all BRAC actions must be completed, we
will have invested $10 billion and saved $15 billion, for a net savings
of $5 billion. We expect savings of $2.6 billion per year thereafter.
We are counting on these savings to recapitalize our force structure in
the future.
Rapid operational closure also provides base closure communities
with early opportunities for economic redevelopment. Effective
community involvement and planning are central to conversion and
redevelopment of our bases and to the retention of a skilled labor
force in the base closure communities. Our conversion and redevelopment
efforts are guided by President Clinton's Five-Point Plan for
Revitalizing Base Closure Communities: Job-centered property disposal
as an economic incentive; Fast track environmental cleanup to
facilitate reuse; Base Transition Coordinators to reduce red-tape;
Ready access to redevelopment assistance; and Larger redevelopment
planning grants.
brac implementation status
The Department of the Navy has completed two-thirds (118 of the
total 178) of the closures and realignments required under the 4 BRAC
rounds. We plan to complete 31 more BRAC actions this year, 14 in
fiscal year 1998, 12 in fiscal year 1999, two in fiscal year 2000, and
one in fiscal year 2001. Major closures planned in fiscal year 1997 are
Naval Air Facility Adak, Alaska; Naval Air Station Alameda, California;
Long Beach Naval Shipyard, California; Naval Training Center San Diego,
California; and Naval Station Treasure Island, California.
BRAC Budget
The Navy's BRAC implementation budget request totals $991 million
in fiscal year 1998, and $605 million in fiscal year 1999, compared to
$1.4 billion in fiscal year 1997. There are 19 BRAC 93 construction
projects and 15 BRAC 95 construction projects in fiscal year 1998. The
BRAC 93 projects support closures of Naval Air Station Barbers Point,
Hawaii, and Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, California. The BRAC 95
actions include the relocation of Naval Sea Systems Command
headquarters, the closure of Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Florida and
the realignment of Navy assets from Naval Air Station Miramar,
California.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC II................................... 88 117 59
BRAC III.................................. 834 485 277
BRAC IV................................... 452 389 269
-----------------------------
Total............................... 1,374 991 605
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decline in the Navy's BRAC budget occurs because the Navy is
``over the hump'' on construction and relocation requirements. Fiscal
year 1996 was the Navy's single largest year for the construction and
O&M funds that were required to relocate forces. Fiscal year 1996 and
fiscal year 1997 are our largest years for completing major closures
and realignments. Our emphasis is now shifting from closure and
realignment to environmental cleanup and property disposal.
We are proud of our execution performance. Through the end of
fiscal year 1996, we had obligated 93.8 percent of all BRAC funds
allocated.
While our execution performance has been very good, it is a
constant struggle to balance construction plans, realignment schedules,
and environmental cleanup priorities. The BRAC account has allowed a
great deal of execution flexibility, due to the statutory six-year BRAC
implementation deadline. However, last year report language was added
requiring a Congressional reprogramming action if the award of a
construction project slipped and required funds in the following fiscal
year. This makes the BRAC account more restrictive than current
reprogramming standards for military construction accounts and
complicates BRAC execution and management. I ask that the Committee
review this area with the goal of applying the current military
construction reprogramming standards to the BRAC process.
Privatization of Louisville and Indianapolis Facilities
We are particularly proud of our successful efforts last year to
privatize the former Naval Ordnance Station Louisville, Kentucky,
(NOSL), and the Naval Air Warfare Center Indianapolis, Indiana, (NAWC).
NOSL was an engineering and industrial organization of approximately
1,600 employees and had a plant value of $274 million, while NAWC
Indianapolis was an engineering research and development activity with
approximately 1,800 employees and a plant value of $147 million. The
BRAC 95 Commission recommended two options: close the facilities and
move the work to other government activities or privatize the work in
place.
The Navy initially pursued both options, but soon realized that
privatizing in place could eliminate excess infrastructure and support
the communities' reuse goals. Instead of simply turning the Navy's work
over to a private company, ``privatization'' would provide private
industry with the facilities, equipment, workload, and most
importantly, the skilled people to perform the work in support of the
Fleet.
Privatization in place had never been done in the Department of
Defense. We relied on the skill, dedication, and persuasion of a team
from the Navy, Members of Congress and their staffs, the Environmental
Protection Agency, State and city officials, the Local Redevelopment
Authorities, and private industry to craft an agreement that was
acceptable to all parties. The agreement was implemented just 10 months
after the BRAC 95 decision was final for NAWC Louisville, and after
only 15 months for NOSL.
Supporting Economic Redevelopment
In implementing BRAC closures, we want to convey property to
communities expeditiously to advance their economic recovery--but not
so quickly that we fail to protect the public from contaminated soil,
air and water, lead-based paint, and friable asbestos. We are also
required by law to consider the impact of property disposal on the
protection of wetlands, the coastal zone, endangered species, and
archeological and historic sites. A final, approved reuse plan from the
Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) is critical to the process.
This process takes time, and in many ways, is far more challenging
than the closure and relocation actions. We can provide interim leases
of base closure property to promote redevelopment, but as stewards of
Federal land, we are required first to prepare an environmental
document known as the ``Finding of Suitability to Lease'' (FOSL). To
accelerate this process, we have been working with LRA's to identify
the most attractive leasing prospects and to prepare the required
documentation ahead of time. We also prepare the required ``Finding of
Suitability to Transfer'' (FOST) as soon as the property is
environmentally suitable to convey title. We have conveyed 7,835 acres
of land to local LRA's and other federal agencies at 27 activities to
date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOST FOSL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed............................................... 25 533
Acres covered........................................... 7,234 4,696
Projected in fiscal year 1997:
Completed........................................... 134 332
Acres covered....................................... 5,417 5,038
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proceeding with Environmental Cleanup
Several communities have expressed concerns about the pace at which
the Navy is able to cleanup contamination on closing bases. Navy has
occupied these Bases for 50 to 100 years or more, many of them as
industrial areas. We now know that disposal practices that were
acceptable in the past are no longer practiced because of the
environmental contamination they leave behind. However, environmental
problems posing an imminent risk to health and human life are rare, and
in fact, we give these problems immediate priority in our cleanup
efforts. Cleaning up these sites will be expensive--an estimated cost
of $2.5 billion--and time consuming.
We have established BRAC cleanup teams comprised of Navy personnel
and environmental regulators to assess, prioritize, and expeditiously
perform the necessary cleanup. We are working with regulators to tie
cleanup standards to the nature of the reuse. This will speed cleanup,
save money, and still protect human health and the environment. We have
established detachments of former shipyard workers and trained them to
do the necessary cleanup work. We have put into place both national and
local contracting authority to perform the work.
Nevertheless, budget constraints limit our ability to accomplish
the cleanups which do not pose an imminent threat but still must be
performed before the property can be conveyed. There is simply not
enough money to clean up every base at once. Our goal is to target
cleanup dollars on those sites that have the most immediate and
definitive prospect for reuse. Those sites that are supported by
approved reuse plans with feasible reuse will get top priority for
cleanup funds. Our intent is to not let cleanup get in the way of
reuse. We are also working with EPA and state regulators to use the new
Section 334 Amendments to CERCLA, which permits the conveyance of
property before the cleanup has been completed.
The Department of Defense has categorized the environmental
condition of property under the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Facilitation Act (CERFA) to provide a convenient breakout of the
current status of our BRAC property. CERFA categories 1-4 properties
are environmentally suitable for transfer. CERFA category 5 indicates
analysis is underway. CERFA category 6 includes property where the
actual cleanup is underway. CERFA category 7 property has not yet been
completely evaluated.
Acres
As of 30 Sept. 96 (All BRAC)
CERFA Cat 1-4................................................. 107,833
CERFA Cat 5................................................... 11,260
CERFA Cat 6................................................... 7,572
CERFA Cat 7................................................... 39,194
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 165,859
military construction
Military Construction in Support of Readiness
The Honorable William S. Cohen, the new Secretary of Defense, has
stated that maintaining readiness will continue to be the number one
priority of the Department of Defense. Our military construction budget
request, comprised of Military Construction, Navy, and Military
Construction, Navy Reserve appropriations, has been structured to
maintain Naval readiness into the future. These two appropriations
provide the necessary investment funds to construct new and replacement
facilities for the active and reserve forces of the Navy and Marine
Corps.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MC,N............................................ 540 475
MC,NR........................................... 14 15
-----------------------
Total..................................... 554 490
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military planners view readiness in terms of ``force,''
``capability,'' and ``mobility.'' ``Force readiness'' provides well
trained, highly motivated personnel that are needed to carry out a
particular mission. ``Capability readiness'' refers to the equipment
needed to perform the mission. ``Mobility readiness'' provides the
flexibility to perform the mission wherever and whenever we can take
advantage of our Naval strengths and the adversaries' weaknesses. Of
course, we must comply with all environmental and safety requirements.
It is useful to view the military construction program in this
manner, especially since Fleet and Fleet Marine Force operators have a
decisive input in establishing military construction project
priorities. Force Readiness provides the proper facilities to induct
and train new recruits, to enhance the quality of life necessary to
attract and retain the best and brightest Sailors and Marines, and to
provide continuous skill training and educational opportunities for
their professional development.
Force Readiness projects typically consist of training buildings,
ranges, reserve centers, barracks, other personnel support and quality
of life facilities. Our fiscal year 1998 military construction budget
request includes a total of $162 million Navy, $64 million Marine
Corps, and $11 million Navy Reserve for force readiness projects.
Specific examples of such projects include an $8.7 million enlisted
dining facility at Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, California; a
$25.0 million barracks at Administrative Support Center, Bahrain; a
$4.4 million child development center at Naval Shipyard Puget Sound,
Washington; and a $6 million Marine Corps Reserve Training Center at
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California.
Operational readiness projects include research, development and
testing facilities that allow us to design, engineer, develop, test and
sustain the technological advantage in weapons systems and platforms
that we now enjoy over our adversaries. It also includes maintenance
hangers, repair shops, utility systems upgrades, and pier replacements.
Our fiscal year 1998 budget request includes a total of $104 million
Navy, and $40 million Marine Corps for operational readiness projects.
Specific examples include a $15.3 million Nuclear Aircraft Carrier
Maintenance Facility at Naval Air Station, North Island, California; a
$21.9 million River Flood Control Project on the Santa Margarita River
at Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California; an $8.9 million
Undersea Weapons Systems Laboratory at Naval Underwater Systems Center
at Newport, Rhode Island; and a $1.5 million Hangar Alteration and
Repair at Naval Air Reserve Center, Norfolk, Virginia.
Mobilization readiness projects supply the proper facilities to
store war reserve stocks, outload and embark forces and material, and
sustain our deployed forces. Typical projects include ammunition
wharves and supply piers, facilities at forward operating bases,
warehouses and munitions magazines, air and port terminals. Our fiscal
year 1998 budget request includes a total of $48 million Navy and $10
million Marine Corps for mobilization readiness projects. Specific
examples include a $14.2 million Air Logistics Terminal at Naval Air
Station Norfolk, Virginia; and $2.7 million Tactical Support Van Pads
at Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina.
Compliance projects ensure that our actions meet all Federal,
state, and local environmental standards, allowing us continued access
to and use of the sea, land and air for training and operational
missions. We must similarly comply with safety and health regulations
to ensure the well being of our military and civilian personnel.
Typical compliance projects include boiler plant modifications,
hazardous waste treatment plants, explosive handling aprons, and
municipal sewer connections. Our fiscal year 1998 budget request
includes a total of $56 million Navy, and $3 million Marine Corps for
compliance projects. Specific examples include a $25.0 million Oily
Waste Collection System at Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; and an
$11.0 million Explosive Safety Ordnance Facility at Naval Air Facility
El Centro, California.
Our fiscal year 1998 budget request also includes planning and
design funds ($42 million in Military Construction, Navy; $2.5 million
Military Construction, Naval Reserve), and unspecified minor
construction funds ($10 million for Military Construction, Navy; $0.6
million for Military Construction Naval Reserve).
We continue to invest in replacement and modernization projects.
One-third of the fiscal year 1998 Navy projects and more than three-
quarters of the Marine Corps projects are for replacement and
modernization of existing facilities.
family housing
Quality of Life
Quality of life programs include military pay and allowances,
housing, medical care, child care, family services, and morale, welfare
and recreation programs. We must invest in these programs just as we
invest in technology, combat systems, and weapon platforms.
The Secretary of Defense, with the enthusiastic support of the
Service Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff, has continued to make quality
of life programs a top priority. I will focus my comments on the family
housing component of quality of life.
Family Housing Priorities
Several years ago, Navy adopted a Neighborhoods of Excellence (NOE)
program to ``first fix what we own.'' NOE used family housing
improvement funds to upgrade electrical and plumbing systems, replace
windows and doors, install new insulation, update kitchens and baths,
and improve landscaping, street lighting, and utility services for an
entire neighborhood, rather than perform piecemeal improvements on
selected components of an individual house. The Marine Corps has
adopted a similar program in the Commandant's Campaign Plan. In
addition to revitalization, we also program replacement construction
projects for houses that can no longer be economically repaired and
maintained.
Family Housing Budget
Our fiscal year 1998-99 budget request reflects these priorities.
Our Operations and Maintenance accounts, the backbone of our family
housing programs, remains steady on a per unit cost basis. Funding
reductions are the result of a 3,000 reduction in houses due primarily
to BRAC. The increase in our leasing program is for recruiters at high
cost locations who are not supported by a nearby military installation;
and additional leases in Italy. Although the total dollar value of our
improvements program is down somewhat from fiscal year 1997, the number
of homes being renovated under our NOE effort remains about the same at
2,300 homes in 31 locations.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction............................ 207 272 90 61
Improvements............................ 293 205 174 211
Design.................................. 24 22 15 18
Leasing................................. 104 109 125 134
Operations.............................. 411 397 389 385
Maintenance............................. 534 509 462 463
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,573 1,514 1,255 1,272
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our fiscal year 1998 family housing construction budget request is
$90 million. There are 2 replacement construction projects and 2 new
construction projects, which together provide 597 homes. All of these
homes are for junior enlisted personnel. The fiscal year 1998 new
construction request is a reduction of $182 million below the fiscal
year 1997 appropriated level. This reduction represents Navy's decision
to step back from acquiring new homes that the Government will own and
operate. Let me explain the rationale for this decision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location and type Cost No. of homes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998:
NAS Lemoore, CA, replacement........ $14,800,000 128
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA, new......... 22,500,000 171
MCAS Miramar, CA, new............... 28,900,000 166
MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, CA,
replacement........................ 23,900,000 132
-------------------------------
Total............................. 90,000,000 597
------------------------------------------------------------------------
meeting the housing challenge
A Holistic Approach to Housing
As members of this Committee are well aware, we have an enormous
challenge before us to solve our housing shortfalls. These are long-
standing, seemingly intractable problems for which we have made great
plans in the past, but fallen short of the mark in subsequent budgets.
The necessity for the Department of Defense to increase procurement
spending to modernize aging weapon systems makes the prospect for
gaining large increases in housing construction funds unlikely.
We cannot hope to solve this problem in isolation. Our past
attempts to do so have been unsuccessful. We must take a holistic
approach to the housing problem, realistically examining both the
facilities and the housing allowances. We completed a number of housing
studies this year that have done just that.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Housing Problem
Family housing:
15,000 homes Navy deficit; solve by fiscal year 2020.
10,500 homes Marine Corps deficit; solve by fiscal year 2088.
36,000 unsuitable Navy homes; solve by fiscal year 2005.
13,000 unsuitable Marine Corps homes; solve by fiscal year 2037.
$2.5 billion Navy major repair/improvement backlog; solve by fiscal
year 2005.
$2.0 billion Marine Corps major repair/improvement backlog; solve
by fiscal year 2037.
Bachelor quarters:
78,000 Navy spaces to convert to 1+1 standard; solve by fiscal year
2075 but in interim moving to 2+0 alternative by fiscal year 2005.
64,600 Marine Corps spaces to convert to 1+1 standard; solve by
fiscal year 2078 but in interim moving to 2+0 alternative by fiscal
year 2005.
$380 million Navy major repair backlog; solve by fiscal year 2004.
$110 million Marine Corps major repair backlog; solve by fiscal
year 2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Housing Allowances
Three-quarters of Navy and Marine Corps families live in the
community and receive housing compensation in the form of Basic
Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) and a supplemental Variable Housing
Allowance (VHA). The stated intent of Congress is that Service members
absorb 15 percent of their housing cost. The absorption is currently
19.6 percent even after the significant 4.8 percent BAQ funding
increases provided last year. While this absorption may be the same
across the country, in practice, personnel in high cost areas tend to
have smaller, lower quality, more distant homes than in those low cost
areas. The Navy and Marine Corps have a disproportionately larger
number of Sailors and Marines living in these high cost areas.
In addition to the increase in housing allowance, Section 606 of
the Fiscal Year 1997 Defense Authorization Act established a minimum
monthly amount of VHA for those living in high cost housing areas. This
VHA ``floor,'' which became effective on 1 January 1997, applies to
both single members as well as those with dependents, and will raise
the VHA amount paid. It will provide additional money to very junior
personnel enabling them to better compete for housing in the community.
We are now trying to evaluate the effect that this will have on the
overall deficit of family housing and bachelor quarters for Navy and
Marine Corps.
The Department of Defense is preparing a Congressionally mandated
report on the pay and allowance system, including any inequities in the
current BAQ/VHA methodologies. One significant problem with the
military housing allowance system is that personnel in high cost areas
often pay significantly more out of pocket for housing than personnel
in low cost areas. The Secretary of Defense, with the participation of
the Services, is evaluating alternatives to address the problem. I
strongly support this study because I think the results could help us
solve many of our housing problems. The report is due to the Congress
next month.
Public/Private Ventures
The Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 104-106)
provided important new tools for us to stimulate development and
revitalization of housing. This Act expanded the limited partnership
authorization of the Fiscal Year 1995 Authorization Act, which was
available only to the Navy.
We are making good progress. We entered into a limited partnership
agreement in July 1996 with Landmark Organization of Austin, Texas, to
construct a total of 404 homes in South Texas. Three hundred homes will
be built in Portland, Texas, to serve personnel stationed at Naval Air
Station Corpus Christi and Naval Station Ingleside, and 100 homes will
serve personnel assigned to Naval Air Station Kingsville. Four homes
have been set aside for use by the developer for management purposes.
Navy contributed $9.5 million from the Department of Defense Family
Housing Improvement Fund (FHIP), and the developer is contributing the
remaining $22.5 million construction cost. The project will provide 76
two bedroom, 276 three bedroom, and 52 four bedroom homes targeted at
an E-5 with dependents. Ground breaking ceremonies were held in
December 1996, and we expect the homes to be available for occupancy by
November 1997. Military members receive first preference for renting
these homes and a lower monthly rent. The partnership extends for 10
years, with an optional 5-year extension. The Navy will share in the
proceeds upon conclusion of the partnership.
The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) provided Congressional
notification last month for Navy to enter into a limited partnership to
construct 185 two, three, and four bedroom homes at Naval Station
Everett, Washington. Military members will receive rental preference
and a lower monthly rent. The target population is an E-5 with
dependents. We intend to transfer $5.9 million of Family Housing, Navy,
construction funds to the FHIP to fund our share of the $18.8 million
development cost. The developer is now securing financing. Our plan is
to begin construction this month and complete the project by May 1998.
The partnership will continue for 10 years, with the developer planning
to begin selling about 37 units per year as condominiums at the 6 year
point. Navy families interested in purchasing these homes will be
entitled to a lower purchase price, partial rent credit, and lower
sales commission. Navy will share in any profits at the conclusion of
the agreement.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navy Public/Private Ventures
404 homes now under construction in South Texas, to be completed in
November 1997.
Congressional notification submitted for building 185 homes in
Everett Washington, to be completed in May 1998.
Navy and Marine Corps actively pursuing additional projects.
----------------------------------------------------------------
We are also proceeding with other privatization projects. The Navy
has 10 projects in various stages of development. The most advanced are
projects to provide 824 homes at Norfolk, Virginia; 238 homes at
Newport, Rhode Island; and another 100 homes at Everett, Washington.
Site visits have been completed at these locations, and project data
are being developed. Site visits should be completed this spring at six
additional locations. The most advanced Marine Corps projects are at
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California where we plan to construct
204 new homes and revitalize 512 others, and at Marine Corps Logistics
Base Albany, Georgia where we plan to dispose of 419 houses off-base
and construct 160 new homes on base. Four other projects are being
developed at other locations including Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina; and Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine
Palms, California.
I am pleased with the progress made to date, but would prefer to
have been further along. We are in unfamiliar waters. It requires an
entirely different perspective--a cultural change in thinking for both
Navy and private developers. We are making sure we do this right.
We are working closely with the Housing Revitalization Support
Office (HRSO) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense to do the
necessary analysis and scoping of the projects in light of local market
conditions. All of the Navy projects have previously authorized and
appropriated Family Housing, Navy, construction money available to fund
these initiatives. The Marine Corps also plans to contribute land and
housing equity for some of their projects. I expect that by this time
next year we will have more projects underway using the tools provided
in the 1996 Authorization Act.
Bachelor Quarters
Our job of solving the bachelor quarters problem is perhaps even
more formidable than that of family housing. Many of the BQs are as
obsolete as our family housing units. But, unlike members with
dependents who live primarily in the community, most unmarried members
live on the Base.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navy: 42 percent of bachelors live on base, 32 percent onboard
ship, and 26 percent in the community.
Marine Corps: 89 percent of bachelors live on base, 11 percent in
the community.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Our fiscal year 1998-99 budget request includes funding for an
additional 5,676 bachelor spaces and replacement and modernization of
1,732 spaces. Comprising over 30 percent of the Department's military
construction program in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, the
budget funds construction of 11 BEQ's in the Continental United States,
2 in Puerto Rico, 2 in Hawaii, and 3 overseas.
Two years ago, the Secretary of Defense approved a new 1+1 standard
for permanent party BQs. The new standard is based on a module
consisting of two individual living/sleeping rooms with closets and a
shared bath and service area. The module contains up to 47 square
meters of gross area, including 11 square meters of net living area per
living/sleeping room. This new standard does not apply to BQs that
house transients, recruits, and those receiving entry-level skill
training.
The new standard will solve long-standing dissatisfaction from
Service members over the privacy and living space afforded under the
old standard. Navy is designing all of its permanent party BQ projects
under the new standard and will convert older BQs to as close to the
1+1 standard as practicable. Under an exception to the 1+1 standard,
the Marine Corps will initially emphasize construction of two-person
rooms, i.e., ``2+0,'' to more quickly improve quality of life for a
larger number of Marines, and later transition to the 1+1
configuration. Each installation is now developing detailed conversion
plans for all of our permanent party BQs.
Housing Direction of the Future
I mentioned earlier that we had completed several housing studies.
The conclusions were both illuminating and surprising to many. The
studies, one performed by the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) and
another by an outside consultant, concluded that it costs the
Government far more to own and operate housing than it costs the
private sector. CNA found that it costs the Navy $13,000 per home per
year to operate and maintain its existing inventory in perpetuity. This
amount excludes $2,000 per year in school impact aid that is not a
direct part of the Navy budget. In contrast, a family living off-base
costs the Navy $8,000 per year in allowances, and the family pays about
$2,000 out-of-pocket costs. Both studies concluded that market forces
tend to increase the efficiency of providing housing.
These studies, combined with changes in the VHA floor enacted last
year, and the possibility of further improvements in housing
allowances, make it prudent to scale back our family housing
construction program. The goal here is not to put an additional
financial burden on our families, but rather to provide them with the
best housing at the best overall value to both our members and their
dependents, and the Department of the Navy. We want to put less
emphasis on acquiring new homes that we will own and operate and focus
on first fixing what we own. We would look primarily to both a revised
housing allowance structure and Public Private Ventures projects in
selected markets to solve our housing problems. We need to let these
efforts continue to take root and blossom.
the need for further infrastructure efficiencies
Infrastructure Efficiencies to Modernize Force Structure
The end of the Cold War has brought about dramatic changes in the
political, social, military, and economic fabric of the world. Old
allegiances have disintegrated. New alliances have been formed. The
threat of global war has diminished.
The domestic base closure process and overseas base closures such
as Subic Bay, Philippines, have eliminated substantial excess capacity
in our shore infrastructure. Nevertheless, even after implementing
these closure actions, infrastructure reductions have not kept pace
with our force structure reduction. We will have reduced the plant
replacement value of our shore infrastructure by only 17 percent since
1988, the first round of BRAC. This stands in sharp contrast to the 26
percent reduction in military end strength, and 40 percent reduction in
ships over this same time period.
We must continue our efforts to reduce unneeded infrastructure on
remaining bases, consolidate functions, and demolish unneeded
structures to minimize operation and maintenance costs. Let me outline
a few ways that we are accomplishing that.
Competition and Outsourcing
Competition and outsourcing are business practices that hold
enormous opportunities to reduce infrastructure costs. The 1995
Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces recommended that
the Department of Defense outsource commercial type work to save money.
Last year, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the Services to
make outsourcing and privatization a priority. A 1996 CNA analysis
estimated that the Navy spends over $10 billion each year performing
in-house functions that could be purchased from the private sector at
lower cost. Savings could be obtained by competing these functions
using the procedures set forth in OMB Circular A-76, Commercial
Activities Program. CNA's analyses of past competitions revealed that
work was retained in-house in about half of the competitions, with
savings averaging 20 to 30 percent regardless of who won the
competition.
In January 1997, I provided Congressional notification of Navy's
intent to compete 10,600 positions across the country under Circular A-
76 standards. In this initial effort, the bulk of the positions are in
base support functions such as public works, supply, berthing, and
motor vehicle maintenance. There are also significant efforts involving
administrative support, data processing, and child care. To maximize
potential savings, we want to compete entire business areas by
consolidating similar functions within a region where feasible. We hope
to gain $3 billion in savings through fiscal year 2003 under this
initiative.
We have put a team of talented individuals in place to manage this
process. The Chief of Naval Operations established a new headquarters
division, N47, headed by a flag officer, to develop detailed execution
plans to guide Navy wide execution. Navy also established a new
Outsourcing Support Office (OSO) as a joint effort by the Naval Supply
Systems Command and the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. OSO is
preparing generic templates and work statements to simplify and
standardize cost comparisons.
Throughout this process, we want Commanding Officers, who will be
in charge of the competitions, to give their employees and unions every
opportunity to participate in the cost comparison and to keep them
fully informed of the progress as it occurs. We will conduct fair and
open competitions and we will minimize as much as we can any disruption
to our dedicated work force.
Privatization
Privatization transfers the control and ownership of government
assets to the private sector with no impact on mission need. Besides
the one time benefit to Navy arising out of transfer of the asset,
privatization reduces current and future infrastructure support costs.
We are studying the feasibility of privatizing Navy utility systems
(electric, natural gas, potable water, and wastewater) at Public Works
Center Jacksonville, Florida; Construction Battalion Center Port
Hueneme, California; Naval Station Pascagoula, Mississippi; and Naval
Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington.
Regionalization of Base Support Functions
Many areas of large fleet concentration have multiple activities
and tenants who may perform duplicate and redundant base support
functions. Does each base need multiple managers for galleys? for
barracks? for fire, security and police protection? We want to achieve
greater efficiencies by consolidating and centralizing functions to
provide less costly base operations services with equal or better
service than before. Regionalization of base support functions at Naval
Air Station Jacksonville, Florida was our first attempt at
regionalization and should save an estimated $20 million per year.
A similar effort is now underway at the Naval complex in San Diego,
California that should save $40 million per year. We are trying to take
base support functions now being performed by 10 host activities down
to just three host activities, and to regionalize specific functions
such as BQ management, security, food service, supply, mail service,
and safety under a single command. Regionalization at Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii would consolidate 8 host activities down to one, saving $18
million per year. We are gathering data to pursue regionalization
opportunities in Pensacola, Florida; Washington, D.C; Puget Sound,
Washington; and Norfolk, Virginia. The central tenet that has emerged
from all of these efforts is that:
--No tenant should do what a host can do more cost effectively;
--No host should do what a large Naval complex can do more cost
effectively; and
--No large Naval complex should do what the surrounding community can
do more cost effectively.
Navy is also trying to reduce the number of major commands who have
base support responsibilities, thereby eliminating much of the
management overhead. These efforts will try to identify those core
functions that are necessary and what drives them, those specific
functions that can be regionalized, and those organizational structures
that are necessary to support regionalization.
We are also trying to take advantage of the competitive forces that
are now at work in the electric power industry. For example, we
recently negotiated a new electricity rate with Virginia Power that
should reduce our utility costs by about 10 percent this year and 15
percent each year thereafter through fiscal year 2002. We are also
working with the utility industry to implement demand side management.
Building Demolition
There are many old, unnecessary, under-utilized and economically
obsolete facilities on our bases that are often an eyesore and reduce
morale. More importantly, they create a financial burden for police and
fire protection and maintenance. We have put $13 million in fiscal year
1998 in a centrally managed operations and maintenance account to
eliminate high cost excess facilities. The major claimants can
supplement this effort with their own Operations and Maintenance funds.
Regional Maintenance
Navy is restructuring and consolidating ashore maintenance
functions for ships and aircraft. The Regional Maintenance Concept
seeks to right-size, level load, and share the use of maintenance
capacities and facilities. This will eliminate excess infrastructure
and provide customers with a single provider of maintenance; strengthen
battle force intermediate maintenance activities; and protect and
strengthen technical authority.
Eight Regional Maintenance Centers have been established, and
Regional Repair Center pilots are also being established. The next step
is to establish a Ship Availability Planning and Engineering Center
(SHAPEC) to consolidate ship maintenance engineering and planning
functions. Full implementation will continue until the turn of the
century.
Smart Base
Smart Base is an initiative to identify and implement innovative,
commercially available technology and better business practices to
increase shore installation efficiency and reduce infrastructure costs.
A Smart Base project team was established in November 1996. An
announcement was published in the Commerce Business Daily to solicit
responses from industry and academia for suggested technology and
management applications. Naval Station Pascagoula, Mississippi and
Naval Shipyard Portsmouth, New Hampshire will serve as the test bases
for Smart Base.
Other Possible Infrastructure Changes in the Future
Two other initiatives could alter the shape and composition of our
infrastructure program: the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and Vision
21.
The QDR is a Congressionally mandated review of the future threats
to the security of the Nation and the Department of Defense's response
to the threats. One of the QDR panels is assessing current
infrastructure capacity and support levels, and considering whether any
changes should be made. This panel is trying to gain more savings out
of infrastructure to support force modernization. I expect the QDR to
make some assessment concerning whether another round of base closures
is necessary. The QDR report is due to the Congress on 15 May 1997. A
National Defense Panel will review the QDR report and provide its
independent assessment to the Congress in December.
Vision 21 is also a Congressionally mandated review of whether
there is excess capacity in the Department of Defense's research and
laboratory facilities. A multi-service, interdisciplinary Vision 21
work group has been collecting and analyzing existing capacity and
workload requirements. The Vision 21 report will be provided to
Congress as part of the fiscal year 2000 budget.
Infrastructure Vision of the Future
For some time now we have been trying to formulate a more precise
vision of exactly how to tailor our infrastructure needs to best
support future Naval readiness. After engaging headquarters leaders,
fleet operators, facility managers, and the analytic prowess of CNA, we
appreciate both the difficulty and enormity of the task. The QDR and
Vision 21 add a certain measure of uncertainty as well. We cannot
determine a baseline requirement for infrastructure until we know what
force structure requirements result from these two efforts.
Nonetheless, we continue our efforts to develop an analytical
methodology to focus our infrastructure requirements.
We must establish an effective process for evaluating the
relationship of force structure to the infrastructure required to
support it, for assessing future infrastructure needs, and for
prioritizing recapitalization requirements to sustain those future
readiness needs. Towards that end, the Secretary of the Navy has
established at my urging a Department of Navy Infrastructure Steering
Committee to recommend policy on the acquisition, disposal, operation,
maintenance and recapitalization of the Department's infrastructure.
The Committee will rely on an existing analysis group, the Department
of the Navy Organization Management and Infrastructure Team (DONOMIT)
to gather and analyze data to support strategic investments and policy
that best match the Department of the Navy's infrastructure to core
missions and force levels.
That concludes my statement. I appreciate the support that this
Committee and its staff has given us in the past, and I look forward to
continued close cooperation in the future.
______
Biographical Sketch of Robert B. Pirie, Jr.
Mr. Pirie was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as Assistant Secretary
of the Navy (Installations and Environment) on 15 March 1994. He has
over thirty years experience in defense-related work in the armed
forces, the civil service and in industry. A Naval Academy graduate in
the class of 1955, he was also a Rhodes Scholar, and attended Oxford
University from 1956-59. He served twenty years as a naval officer,
culminating his service with three years in command of a nuclear attack
submarine.
Upon retirement from the Navy in 1975 Mr. Pirie joined the newly
formed Congressional Budget Office as Deputy Assistant Director,
National Security. In 1977 Mr. Pirie became Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics). He was
nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve
Affairs and Logistics) by President Carter in December, 1978, and
served in that position until January, 1981. After leaving government
service he held a variety of positions in the private sector, including
that of President of Essex Corporation and Vice President of the Center
for Naval Analyses and Vice President of the Institute for Defense
Analyses. He also directed the CNO Strategic Studies Group from 1989 to
1992.
Mr. Pirie and his wife, the former Joan Adams of Barrington, Rhode
Island, reside in Bethesda, Maryland. They have three grown children;
two sons, John and Carl, and a daughter, Susan.
housing construction budget
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. A couple of
questions.
The housing construction budget is down more than 30
percent from last year. Tell me, does this mean that we have a
less severe problem than last year or that we think that
private housing will solve that problem for--I think we have
around a 15,000 unit deficit?
Mr. Pirie. We have a fairly substantial deficit, Mr.
Chairman. And clearly our thinking is the latter, that access
to private capital, the public-private ventures, and the
improvement of allowances for the troops, which leverages us in
two ways--one, it makes ordinary housing in the private sector
more affordable for them and more available; and second, it
makes our public-private ventures more attractive to the people
that we want to attract.
So we think the combination of that is the way to go in
housing.
Senator Burns. What is the average waiting list right now
for Navy and Marine Corps for family quarters?
Mr. Pirie. It is between, I think, 1 to 6 months for Navy
housing and 15 months, if I am not mistaken, for Marine Corps
housing.
Senator Burns. I am sorry?
Mr. Pirie. It is 15 months for Marine Corps housing, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Burns. Do you think that privatization is going to
help that situation?
Mr. Pirie. I think so. I think it will give us access to
more houses faster than if we depend simply on straight
Government Milcon, because that budget, as we have seen, is
under intense pressure from other demands.
Senator Burns. Tell me about the risk in this in the
private sector whenever we go into another round of BRAC,
whenever a base closes? How much exposure do we have out there
on long-term situations that may be very costly to us?
Mr. Pirie. Well, these deals can take different forms, but
the ones that we have entered into already, these are two
limited partnerships, Mr. Chairman. So our liability is limited
to the amount that we have in the partnership.
Further, even if we close the installation and move away,
the housing is available to be used by the partnership and can
be occupied by civilian people from the local area. So we do
not believe that the liability is very great.
Senator Burns. Now, let us go back to another situation. Is
El Toro closed?
El Toro Base Closure
Mr. Pirie. El Toro still has not reached the operational
closure phase, but we are beginning to phase down. I think
General Stewart can give you a little more detail on that.
Senator Burns. Can you bring me up to date on what state we
are at El Toro?
General Stewart. Sir, we are moving along. We are moving to
Miramar. We have some units at Miramar already, but the closure
date for El Toro is not until the summer of 1999.
Senator Burns. When we start in our environmental cleanup,
Mr. Secretary, so that that base can--then I assume it will be
put on the market and we will dispose of that. But the cleanup
has to take place first. I am told that the EPA now is working
with us and it will depend on what that base will be sold for
as to the degree of cleanup.
Is that correct? Or have we got all those things worked
out?
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir; generally, we consider what the use of
the base will be in standards of cleanup. So if it is going to
be an airport and it has been an air station, we take that into
account. We do not clean it back up to national park standards.
That is taken account of, yes, sir.
Senator Burns. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
housing initiative--bangor, wa
Mr. Secretary, I understand that there was a proposal for
this budget submission to include a new public-private housing
initiative at our Navy base at Bangor, WA. And I believe the
amount of public funding was to be $15.8 million. I also
understand that the planning at the base with regards to this
initiative, which would produce about 600 or more new housing
units, was developing very well.
To my surprise, the funding was eliminated from the budget
and pushed out into the out-years. Can you explain why?
Mr. Pirie. I will have to give you a detailed answer for
the record, Senator Murray. What I know about the issue is that
the justification for that particular project was considered
less compelling than the justification for some others. But I
will provide a detailed response for the record.
[The information follows:]
The Navy had project P-406 in the program for fiscal year 1998 to
provide 118 homes for junior enlisted families at Naval Submarine Base
Bangor, Washington at a cost of $15,698 thousand. This project would
have been a candidate for public/private venture and could conceivably
provide two to three times the number of homes.
However, this project and three other housing projects at PWC San
Diego, California were deleted in the final stages of budget
preparation. As I mentioned in my testimony before this Committee, we
completed several housing studies this year that concluded that it
costs more for the Navy to own and operate housing than it costs the
private sector. These studies, combined with changes in the VHA floor
enacted last year, along with the possibility for further improvements
in housing allowance being pursed by the Department of Defense, made it
prudent for us to scale back our family housing construction program
and let us focus on fixing what we currently own. The Bangor housing
project, along with the San Diego projects, were new construction
projects intended to reduce the housing deficit, and thus would have
added to our housing inventory. They were not replacement construction
projects as the other family housing projects that were retained in the
Navy program and included in the President's Budget Submission.
Senator Murray. I would like to see the justification for
that.
Mr. Secretary, Senator Cohen on February 12 stated before
the Senate Armed Services Committee--and I want to quote it to
you:
My first priority goes to people. We must continue to
attract and retain the high quality personnel necessary to
preserve U.S. military superiority. The increasing complexity
of technology, the quickening pace of warfare, and growing
unpredictability of the international scene require that our
people be more adaptable and versatile than ever. The key to
America's military strength is the superb quality of our
uniformed men and women.
He then goes on to state his second priority is readiness
and his third priority is modernization. But your testimony
conflicts with Secretary Cohen in several locations because in
your testimony you say:
The necessity for the Department of Defense to increase
procurement spending to modernize aging weapons systems makes
the prospect for gaining large increases in housing
construction funds unlikely.
On page 3 of your testimony you say that you are reducing
the funding for the construction of new housing. In fact, you
have reduced the funding for new construction by 44 percent
below last year's actual level.
I have to tell you that I represent a region of the country
with an increased Navy presence and a significant deficit in
housing. I also want to note that you have a chart that you
provide which details the housing problem and the chart shows
that you plan to solve the Marine Corps housing deficit by the
year 2088, which is about 91 years away. I guess maybe that is
long-term planning, but I find that a little bit worrisome.
Do you think that the priorities that you have presented
today are consistent with Secretary Cohen's?
Mr. Pirie. Yes, ma'am, I do. I believe that we have
protected the quality of life accounts fairly successfully in
the past and we have protected readiness. I think we are under
some pressure to think about the consequences of a fair amount
of block obsolescence in the weapons systems and so forth, so
that, having stood by quality of life and readiness for the
past few years, we are looking for other ways to make funds
available for the investment accounts.
I do not think our budget is inconsistent with Secretary
Cohen's priorities.
Senator Murray. Well, it seems to me that if we want to
attract quality people and keep them in the service, one of the
things we have to do is make sure that they have adequate
housing, places to live, and feel comfortable. I certainly
know, in talking to many of the people in the Navy in my home
State, that that is a high priority.
Let me ask one other question, Mr. Chairman, at this time.
I note that the fiscal year 1998 military construction
budget contains money for a medical-dental clinic at the
Everett Naval Station in Washington State. The new clinic is
going to replace a series of trailers that are now used to
provide health care services and it is really needed by our
people in Everett.
My staff and I were given information about this clinic
indicating that the facility would be used for active duty
personnel only, and I wanted to know if you can explain that to
me. I was recently at the Everett facility and I have to tell
you this proposal to build an active duty only health care
facility really contradicts many of the other family friendly
initiatives that are being undertaken at Everett.
If you could explain the justification for active only, I
would appreciate it. I am especially concerned because we have
a new child development center there. If a child is hurt or
injured there that needs medical attention, where do they go?
Or if a family member is injured at the recreational facility,
where do they go?
Can you explain the justification for active duty only?
Mr. Pirie. The policy with respect to the operation of our
medical facilities is not in my charter or area of
responsibility, Senator Murray. I can get you an answer from
the appropriate officials for the record.
Senator Murray. I would very much appreciate it if you
would do that for the record.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, ma'am.
[The information follows:]
The existing Branch Medical Clinic at Everett provides care to
active duty and their family members. Family members will continue to
receive health care in the replacement clinic as long as capacity is
not exceeded. If capacity is attained, then family members will be
enrolled in the civilian TRICARE managed care network that has been
established in the Everett/Bremerton area. This is a strong TRICARE
unit with over 35 primary care providers in the network.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. My good friend was here ahead of me.
Senator Burns. I am referee in this outfit. Senator
Stevens, would you proceed. [Laughter.]
Senator Stevens. Well, all right.
Senator Burns. And if you have a statement, I would make
that part of the record, or you can give your statement or
whatever.
Senator Stevens. I have no statement. I just want to ask a
question of the Secretary.
adak naval air facility
What I am really interested in is Adak. Adak will close
this year. There are a series of controversies out there
arising now. Have you ever been to Adak?
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir; I was there last September.
Senator Stevens. I think one of the things most people
don't realize about Adak was that it was the logistical center
for not only the Navy, but also for the various islands there,
the Native villages, and the fishing industry. The commercial
airlines went to Adak and offloaded their material, even mail
for the villages on those islands, and the Navy tugboats
delivered that material to them. It was a courtesy that was
developed over a series of years, primarily due to the interest
of the commander, the base commander there, and it was a real
interesting relationship that developed.
Now I understand the Navy is going to take the tugboats out
of there as it turns over the Adak base to the Aleut Corp. Are
you familiar with that?
Mr. Pirie. I have just become aware of it in the last
several days. As I understand the situation, the Aleut Corp.,
if it, in fact, takes over Adak, which is not yet absolutely
certain, although we are working to that end--but before they
are in a position to do that, there will be no one to maintain
the tugboats in Adak and the Admiral in charge of this area
believes that it would be best to take the tugboats back to
Puget Sound and keep them there.
If the Aleut Corp.----
Senator Stevens. Are you going to surplus them when they
get down there?
Mr. Pirie. As far as I know, they will be useful in the
Puget Sound area. We will certainly be able to maintain them
and keep them----
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, when I went out there I
found that we had surplused a whole series of trucks by taking
them down to the west coast, outside, as we call it, and the
cost of taking the trucks down exceeded the price that the Navy
got for the trucks.
Have you looked into what you are doing there in terms of
incurring costs to move material that is useable to the people
who are going to take over, but it will cost more to move it
than it is worth?
Mr. Pirie. I am not familiar with the truck case, but I
will look into it, Senator.
[The information follows:]
I am not aware of any wholesale movement of surplus trucks from
Adak to the West Coast for disposition by sale. The non-appropriated
Navy Exchange System has, however, moved several vehicles off Adak as a
business decision not affected by the BRAC statutes. I can assure you
that the small fraction of the total inventory of personal property
that has left the island has done so with good economic justification
supporting Navy reuse and only after notification to the Adak Reuse
Authority. No surplus appropriated material that I am aware of has left
Adak for the purpose of disposal by sale.
Mr. Pirie. With respect to the other personal property, we
have taken less than 1 percent of the available personal
property, which includes trucks, fire trucks, cranes, and
things of that kind. Less than 1 percent of that has actually
been moved out of Adak.
Senator Stevens. There was a substantial portion of the
personal property that was moved on. I congratulate the Navy on
some of that. The school, I think some members know, is named
after my first wife, Ann Stevens School, and all of the
materials in that school were distributed up and down the
chain, which I thought was a very nice thing to do.
But I really question the extent to which the Navy seems to
think that it ought to take everything out of there without
regard to the value of what they are taking. On the tugs, if
those tugs go away, did you know we are going to have to buy
some for the BIA or somebody to deliver the material that comes
to Adak still that goes to Native villages?
Mr. Pirie. I am not aware of this arrangement, Senator. And
it is not clear to me who is going to operate the tugs if we
leave them in Adak, and we are very concerned about maintaining
them. I think they will be maintained better if they go to
Puget Sound.
If the LRA, if the Aleut Nation, later needs them, we can
transfer them back to them.
Senator Stevens. When I came to the Senate there were two
vessels called the North Star One and North Star Two. They made
a trip annually in the summertime to the villages along the
chain and up the west coast of Alaska. That was their only
annual supply.
They are gone now. One of the reasons they are gone now is
because we have made arrangements, just sort of ad hoc
arrangements, all the way along the line using military bases
for the centers of distribution for the villages. It was worked
out as an accommodation, as I said, through the generosity,
really, and courtesy of the military commander.
I would urge you to take a look at really what has been
going on out there in terms of how those facilities function to
assist the people who live in the area. Not all Native people;
some are part of the fishing industry. At one time there was a
cannery there and a fishing dock on the other side of Adak,
away from the naval base, that flourished and worked very well.
It is my understanding that that will be reopened,
hopefully, and it will mean that some of the equipment that is
there in Adak will be necessary to maintain the road and to
have access to that other area.
I know you have a job to do in terms of protecting the
Government's interest in this property. But I also hope that
there is some way. Let me ask you this: If you need further
legal authority to allow you to leave that material there so it
can continue to provide the services for the people in the
Aleutians, would you let me know?
Mr. Pirie. Yes.
Senator Stevens. I think Congress would understand that
concept. We all know that when that material has been exhausted
its life is over. Whoever takes over Adak has got to find some
way to replace it. It is not going to be a permanent
responsibility, but right now the transition between having the
tremendous amount of assistance that was available--there were
four naval bases on Adak. I am not sure that people here even
realize that was the seventh largest population center in my
State.
Now, just 2 months from now, the Navy population will be
zero.
Mr. Pirie. We are committed to doing whatever we can,
Senator, to make this transition of Adak to whoever will be
operating it in the future as smooth and productive as
possible, and to protecting the interests of the citizens who
remain in the area.
Senator Stevens. One last question----
Mr. Pirie. So we will work with you, sir.
Senator Stevens. Are you familiar with the proposed meeting
for April in Anchorage with all the parties that are supposed
to be interested in the transition at Adak?
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. What level of naval people are going to go
there?
Mr. Pirie. I believe Admiral Nash is planning to go, and my
Deputy for Conversion and Redevelopment, Mr. Cassidy, is going
to go.
Senator Stevens. Both the Governor and I are interested in
being there if we possibly can. I will be in touch with you on
that.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank my colleague from
Hawaii. I do not agree with what he did.
Senator Burns. Thank you.
Our good friend Senator Inouye from Hawaii.
ford island development plan
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, you may be aware that the causeway bridge
that connects Ford Island to the rest of Pearl Harbor will be
operational some time this year. I am aware that there are
plans for the development of Ford Island. Are you prepared to
discuss that with us or is that a bit early yet?
Mr. Pirie. It is a bit early. I have seen a conceptual plan
for the development of Ford Island and I know that the base
commander is at work. And I know that the base commander is at
work with that.
It would include a substantial amount of family housing,
but also a center which would include a museum and a tourist
center and things of that kind, and it has a place for the
Missouri to be moored and access to the Missouri. As a concept,
it is a very attractive plan and I hope that we can continue to
move in that direction and build on it.
Senator Inouye. It has not gone through the process in your
shop?
Mr. Pirie. It is still in the thinking stage. So far there
is no program money or anything like that behind it.
Senator Inouye. Most of us in Hawaii are very excited about
this, so we look upon you for your lead.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
one plus one barracks requirement
Mr. Burns. Mr. Secretary, when do you anticipate the Navy
will meet its new one plus one standard under the current
funding conditions?
Mr. Pirie. I think our schedule for one plus one gets the
Navy there in about 2013, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. And the bachelor housing deficit in the
Navy, what is your deficit right now in that kind of housing?
And also in the Marine Corps, if I could get a figure on that?
Mr. Pirie. I am going to have to provide that for the
record. We are not at all certain. Because of the fact that we
have new authorities for bachelors to take housing in the
private sector and be given basic allowance quarters and a
variable housing allowance and things of that kind, I am not
sure we have got the right numbers. But we will supply them,
Mr. Chairman, for the record.
[The information follows:]
The Navy estimates that it will require $2.3 billion over the next
sixteen years to construct the 38,500 spaces necessary to satisfy its
1+1 barracks requirement. The Marine Corps cost is the same but the
execution time frame significantly longer. This is due to their
strategy to first build enough 2+0 barracks spaces to erase their
existing inventory of inadequate spaces. The 1+1 construction that
follows is estimated to cost $1.9 billion over 73 years to construct
35,500 spaces. FYDP funding required to work towards the 1+1 barracks
standard goal is $0.7 billion for the Navy and $0.3 billion for the
Marine Corps (cost of eliminating inadequate spaces using 2+0
configuration).
Senator Burns. General Stewart?
General Stewart. Sir, in the Marine Corps we have 10,477
inadequate quarters, bachelor enlisted quarters, which is why
we went to the two plus zero standard, two marines in a room
sharing a head, as our standard to fix that more quickly, and
that is an interim standard. But we plan on having our marines
out of inadequate quarters by 2005.
Senator Burns. Is the two plus working?
General Stewart. We think it is going to work, sir. We
think that, while we are still committed to the one plus one,
we think there is a lot of value to having two marines in the
same room. It is good for training, it is good for morale, it
is good for unit cohesion. So we do not see it as a degradation
to use two marines in a room.
Senator Burns. It is funny how times change. When I was in
it was 60. [Laughter.]
Senator Burns. In a Quonset hut, and the air-conditioning
that you got if you were lucky enough to have a door on both
ends, those type of situations.
I want to just bring up a subject here that I think has
caught a lot of us, and I am not sure that this is the place to
raise this thing. I would like to know what is the situation at
Long Beach, CA, and what is happening there with the PRC? It
caught a lot of us in Congress off guard.
port of long beach
Mr. Pirie. The local redevelopment authority, which is a
Long Beach city organization, has a reuse plan which
countenances the naval station and the naval shipyard becoming
part of the Port of Long Beach. The Port of Long Beach then
intends to lease part or all of that port facility, which would
be a major intermodal port, to the China Ocean Shipping Co.
But this will be after the Port of Long Beach has
essentially demolished the naval station and the naval shipyard
and created an intermodal port in the area. So there will be no
naval facility there.
What we are talking about is an ultimate commercial deal
between the Port of Long Beach and one of its customers, China
Ocean Shipping.
Senator Burns. But the Long Beach--the civil authorities
there have complete control of the area of the old Long Beach
Naval Station and Shipyard, is that correct?
Mr. Pirie. They will when we turn it over to them.
Senator Burns. When does that happen?
Mr. Pirie. Let us see. I think the shipyard closes
operationally in October. When we will be able to lease--I am
not certain when we actually will be able to lease it to Long
Beach and allow them to actually start the demolition. I think
that is probably beyond October but I am not sure. I will
supply that for the record, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
The shipyard operationally closes on 30 September 1997. A Lease in
Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) is the mechanism by which control of
the facility will be passed to the Local Reuse Authority. Although
interim leases between Navy and interested parties could be executed at
any time (before or after closure), the master lease approach (LIFOC)
to transfer of control is strongly supported by the LRA and the Port
Authority. This LIFOC will be executed upon the issuance of the
Environmental Record of Decision (ROD) which is expected by the end of
the calendar year 1997.
The Naval Station is operationally closed (9/30/94). The LIFOC is
in my office with approval waiting for the resolution of a court order
directed at the Port Authority (so as not to influence the court
decision).
Senator Burns. In other words, it is a lease arrangement?
We are still going to own the property, either the Federal
Government or the Department of Defense?
Mr. Pirie. The Navy cannot transfer the property to Long
Beach until we have completed the final environmental impact
statement and the cleanup is complete. What we do in the
interim is lease it to the city of Long Beach to allow them to
sublease it to the Port of Long Beach, to allow them to build
the new container port.
brac environmental cleanup
Senator Burns. I understand the Navy is working hard to
implement the BRAC round of decisions as well as the previous
three rounds. Long-term financial obligations--what obligations
do you think the Navy will incur as a result of these
environmental cleanup activities? What is in the future and
your plans, and how far have you really planned out into the
future, because I know the goodly part of BRAC is environmental
cleanup?
Mr. Pirie. We figure that BRAC environmental cleanup will
run us about $2.5 billion, Mr. Chairman, which is about one-
quarter of what it is going to cost us to implement the four
rounds of BRAC. And the cleanup will run beyond the year 2001
simply because, in some cases, the technology does not allow
you to clean these places up that fast.
So we will then cover the environmental cleanup costs of
BRAC installations out of the ``Environmental restoration,
Navy'' account. We have plans to do that.
Senator Burns. Have we incurred any problem now on turnover
that has been subject to environmental cleanup or any hangups?
Mr. Pirie. We have had no problems. No turnovers have been
delayed because of environmental problems.
base closure
Senator Burns. Does the Navy need another round of base
closure? How about a little loaded pistol to carry around in
your pocket?
Mr. Pirie. That is a fairly straightforward question, Mr.
Chairman. Let me tell you what I know about that. I know that
Secretary Perry said some time ago that we would probably need
another round, perhaps in 2001. And I know that the Chairman of
the Commission, former Secretary Dixon, picked the same year in
his valedictory. You are probably aware that the Navy
recommended a number of installations for closure which the
Commission denied.
So I believe that there is enough excess capacity for us to
contemplate another round. The ``Quadrennial Defense Review''
[QDR] has an infrastructure panel and it is quite possible that
that panel will recommend to the Secretary of Defense that he
ask for another round of BRAC.
Senator Burns. With regard to that, your permanent base
facilities--shoreline facilities, I think there has been--I
have been questioned about it and I have some concern about the
infrastructure there, our investment in that infrastructure.
Has that been adequate?
Mr. Pirie. Well, it is never as much as I want, but it is
about as much as is permitted by the other funding pressures.
Certainly the facilities--piers, runways, hangars, and so
forth--need to be kept in good shape, and I wish we had more
money to spend on them.
I would say that we are accomplishing the art of the
possible there.
Senator Burns. Mr. Secretary, could I ask you, you all have
done a study and you probably have a priority list in what
infrastructures we invest more in than we do in others. I would
imagine that some of the facilities in your infrastructure that
were recommended for BRAC and then were denied by the
Commission, the investment there would be more scrutinized for
investment probably than any other area.
Other than money, what other obstacles do we run into on
dealing with our infrastructure?
Mr. Pirie. I do not think we have any. I think Admiral
Nash's command is quite capable of executing a substantial
amount of both the maintenance of real property and new
construction. They have been quite good at that in the past, so
I do not think we have got limitations other than money, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Burns. I would like to visit with you sometime,
just sit in an office and sit down and take a look at those
priorities. I have a list somewhere, but I probably could not
lay my hands on them. I have got very capable people here.
But I would like to take a look at the situation of what
you recommended for BRAC closure and see your priorities and
maybe work with you a little bit maybe on that infrastructure,
because there is some concern about that infrastructure. And if
we could work together, why, I am sure I would just like to do
that.
Mr. Pirie. I would be very glad to do that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Mr. Secretary, that is all the questions I
have for this panel. Senator Murray may have some followup
questions.
community facilities
Senator Murray. I just have one more general area I wanted
to ask you about and that is community facilities, like child
care development centers, physical fitness centers, and
community centers. How many, roughly, do you have in the budget
for those kinds of things?
Mr. Pirie. Let us see. I think we have one child care
center in 1997 and one in 1998. Is that right, Admiral Nash?
Admiral Nash. Two, one in Navy, one in Marine Corps.
Mr. Pirie. Child care centers. With respect to gyms,
community centers, and other facilities, I will have to take
that for the record.
[The information follows:]
In the fiscal year 1998 Department of the Navy military
construction budget, there is one Child Development Center, two
Physical Fitness Centers, one Community/Recreation Center, and one
Religious Education/Community Support Center. There is one additional
Physical Fitness Center in our BRAC budget.
Senator Murray. OK, because the Marsh Commission, I know,
on quality of life issues recommended 44 fitness centers and
child development centers. So I would like to know that
information.
Also, if you can just give me your rough feeling on how
many unfunded needs we have in that area?
Mr. Pirie. I think we could spend a very substantial amount
of money in the area. The real question here is to what degree
should we depend on the private sector to support our child
care needs, to what degree should we depend on the private
sector to provide for gyms and other things? I think the wave
of the future is to look to other commercial activities to
provide services that are not strictly related to the
operational needs of the forces.
If in some cases we appear to be dragging our feet, it is
probably because we are trying to figure out what the best way
to provide the best services for the people really is.
Senator Murray. Certainly it depends on what community you
are in. But I can tell you, Everett or Bangor, child care is a
tremendous problem in the communities surrounding the bases,
especially with welfare reform coming down, it is going to have
a dramatic increased need for day care centers. We need to be
ahead of the curve so that the men and women on the base do not
get caught in a bind that there is nothing available for them.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, ma'am.
Admiral Nash, do you want to say anything?
Admiral Nash. I know that this is not my area of expertise,
but I know that we are actively pursuing other alternatives in
terms of ways to provide child development. So we are not
sitting back. We are pursuing this as rapidly as we can.
Like everything, it kind of depends on the area, whether it
is housing privatization or child development. But we
understand, yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Additional committee questions
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Secretary for your capable
help today. We appreciate your coming this morning. We have
some more questions that will be submitted for the record. And
if other committee members have questions, if you could respond
to them and to the committee, I would appreciate that.
Once again, thank you for your great cooperation that this
committee enjoys with your Department, and we hope to continue
that right along through this process and we thank you for
coming this morning.
Mr. Pirie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
Question. I understand that there was a proposal for this budget
submission to include a new public/private housing initiative at our
Navy Base at Bangor, Washington. I believe the amount of the public
funding was to be $15.8 million. I also understand that the planning at
the base in regards to this initiative, which would produce some 600 or
more new housing units, was developing well. To our surprise the
funding was eliminated from the budget, and pushed into the outyears.
Why?
Answer. The Navy had project P-406 in the program for fiscal year
1998 to provide 118 homes for junior enlisted families at Naval
Submarine Base Bangor, Washington at a cost of $15,698 thousand. This
project would have been a candidate for public/private venture and
could have conceivably provided two to three times the number of homes.
However, this project and three other housing projects at PWC San
Diego, California were deleted in the final stages of budget
preparation. As I mentioned in my testimony before this committee, we
completed several housing studies this year that concluded that it
costs more for the Navy to own and operate housing than it costs the
private sector. These studies, combined with changes in the VHA floor
enacted last year, along with the possibility for further improvements
in housing allowance being pursed by the Department of Defense, made it
prudent for us to scale back our family housing construction program
and let us focus on fixing what we currently own. The Bangor housing
project, along with the San Diego projects, were new construction
projects intended to reduce the housing deficit, and thus would have
added to our housing inventory. They were not replacement construction
projects as the other family housing projects that were retained in the
Navy program and included in the President's Budget Submission.
infrastructure
Question. The infrastructure reductions resulting from the rounds
of BRAC that we have conducted amount to an overall DOD reduction of
some 18 percent. While this has been difficult, our overall force
reductions have been far more substantial than that, over 30 percent.
Doesn't this mean that we still have far too much infrastructure for
our requirements, and that we should look again at reducing
infrastructure. Would you support another round of BRAC? If not, why
not?
Answer. Yes, I would support at least one more round of BRAC. After
implementing four rounds of BRAC, we will have reduced the plant
replacement value of our shore infrastructure by only 17 percent since
1988, the first round of BRAC. That stands in sharp contrast to the 26
percent reduction in military end strength, and 40 percent reduction in
ships over this same time period.
We are pursuing a number of initiatives to further reduce
infrastructure support costs, including competition and outsourcing,
privatization, regionalization of base support function, building
demolition, regional maintenance, and smart base technologies.
privatization of utilities
Question. I understand that privatization of utilities at our bases
has been lagging. Is this the case? What is the problem in the
privatization of utility infrastructure, and what can be done to speed
this process up? I understand that the Administration has been
considering proposed legislation for utility privatization--is this the
case, and what is the status of this legislative proposal?
Answer. The Navy initiated its utilities privatization effort in
fiscal year 1996 with a pilot study comprised of four installations:
PWC Jacksonville (large multi-location complex, well maintained);
NAVSTA Pascagoula (small, new installation); CBC Port Hueneme (medium,
aging installation); and NAS Whidbey Island (medium large, aging
installation).
The objectives of the pilot study are to identify and remove
barriers to privatization and to establish criteria that the Navy can
use to readily identify promising privatization candidates. Although
the study will not be completed until the end of fiscal year 1997, one
obstacle to privatization has been identified: no legal authority
exists to allow the government to transfer or lease non-surplus
property to a private entity.
The administration is proposing legislation to authorize the
Services to privatize utility systems when in the best economic
interest of the Government and after notifying Congress. The lack of
legislation allowing privatization requires that DOD seek enabling
legislation for each and every utility system it seeks to privatize.
The current process requires that the new owner be identified and an
economic analysis provided that documents the benefits of privatization
before special legislation is requested. This process can take two
years or more which is a disincentive to private corporations to
participate in the privatization process. The proposed legislation, if
enacted into law, will provide the legal authority for the Services to
privatize utility systems where in the best economic interest of the
Government and subject to a Congressional notification process. This
will greatly streamline the process.
waiting list for base housing
Question. In general, can you characterize the problem of waiting
lists for base housing? What is the backlog, and what is the affect on
morale? How can we eliminate this problem in the long run?
Answer. As of 30 September 1996, there were 25,000 Navy families
and 6,000 Marine Corps families on waiting lists for family housing.
Waiting times for assignment to family housing vary from a few months
to several years depending on the location, time of year, and other
factors.
The waiting list reflects the quality, cost, and availability of
housing, commuting distances, surrounding support facilities, and
availability of good schools. The Navy and Marine Corps have a
disproportionately larger number of members living in high cost areas.
The best way to reduce waiting lists in the long run is to improve
housing allowances. Improving the allowance system will reduce members'
out-of-pocket costs and allow them to afford a wider selection of
quality housing in the private sector.
We have also instituted aggressive housing referral efforts to
identify and capture the maximum supply of affordable community
housing.
budget benefits of privatization of housing
Question. The housing construction budget is down more than 30
percent from last year. Does this mean we have a less severe problem
than last year? What does this say about our commitment to quality of
life initiatives? Do you believe the housing budget is adequate for
fiscal year 1998? What is the right number? How many housing units does
a 30 percent reduction represent?
Answer. The reduction in the family housing construction account
represents our decision to step back from acquiring new homes that the
Government would own and operate. The Department of the Navy plans to
rely more on improved housing allowances; privatization authorities;
and enhanced housing referral services to meet the housing needs of
Navy and Marine Corps families. This decision reinforces our commitment
to quality of life and provides a balanced approach to reducing our
housing shortfalls.
Our fiscal year 1998 request supports our policy to ``first fix
what we own.'' In addition to revitalization, we budget for replacement
construction projects for units that can no longer be economically
repaired and maintained. Although the dollar value of our improvement
request is down slightly from fiscal year 1997, the number of homes
being renovated remains about the same at 2,300 homes in 31 locations.
This year's request also includes two projects for the replacement of
260 homes at Lemoore and Twentynine Palms, California, and two projects
for a total of 337 new homes at Camp Pendleton and Miramar, California.
The 30 percent reduction to our construction program request
equates to about $125 million. At a nominal cost of $142,250 per unit
cost, this would be about 878 homes.
new public/private housing initiative in dod
Question. What is your assessment of the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative? What are the long-term impacts that we can
expect in the way of Housing construction? Can the initiative be
extended to the construction of barracks as well? What can we expect to
see in the way of projects in the current calendar year?
Answer. The DOD Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) is
off to a good start. It receives praise in public and private forums,
and requests for activity site visit evaluations continue to increase
as installation Commanding Officers recognize the potentials for
leveraging currently held land and housing assets as the Department's
equity investment in Public-Private Venture (P/PV) deals. We are
aggressively flattening the learning curve in the application of the
MHPI Authorities with the help of real estate industry consultants and,
thereby, increasing the likelihood of a fair investment return and
reduction of market risks to the developer.
With respect to long-term impacts on housing construction, the
Department is shifting course away from traditional Navy construction
in pursuit of new acquisition methodologies. We anticipate being able
to identify candidate P/PV projects as part of the budget request in
the future, but we are not there yet. Housing MILCON funding serves two
vital purposes. It: (1) provides the only liquid form of equity
available for P/PV deals; and, (2) keeps the Navy on track with its
promise to ``fix what we own.'' New housing Authorities, improved
housing allowances, and enhanced housing referral services will be
creatively matched with housing requirements to reduce operating costs,
and multiply the return on our investment through the careful
leveraging of Navy assets.
The fiscal year 1996 MHPI legislation included language which
authorized the Services to address bachelor quarters construction
requirements. We have been focusing our energies in pursuing P/PV
initiatives for family housing, and have conceptually discussed
possible BQ P/PV projects.
I cannot reasonably predict whether we will have any P/PV projects
developed to the point where we will provide Congressional notification
on a solicitation for proposal or intent to sign a contract by the end
of this calendar year. There are still uncertainties that must be
resolved, some of which are beyond our immediate control. We are
proceeding with 10 projects in various stages of development. The most
advanced Navy projects are to provide 824 homes at Norfolk, Virginia
and 238 homes at Newport, Rhode Island. Site visits have been completed
at these locations and project data are being analyzed. The most
advanced Marine Corps projects are at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton,
California where we plan to construct 204 new homes and revitalize 512
others, and at Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, Georgia where we
plan to dispose of 419 houses off-base and construct 160 new homes.
community development facilities
Question. What is in this budget in the way of community
facilities, such as child care or child development centers, physical
fitness centers, community centers? How many of each, roughly are in
the budget? Is it true that there are only 2 gymnasiums and no Child
Development Centers in the Air Force budget? The Marsh commission on
quality of life issues recommended 44 (forty-four) fitness centers and
child development centers. What is the need for such facilities? What
is the unfunded need for these type of facilities?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 Department of the Navy military
construction budget includes one Child Development Center, two Physical
Fitness Centers, one Community/Recreation Center, and one Religious
Education/Community Support Center. There is one additional Physical
Fitness Center in our BRAC budget. We are evaluating the feasibility of
contracting with private child care providers as a way to provide cost-
effective care for more military families.
Question. Adequacy of funding for Maintenance and Repair of
Military Family Housing and Real Property Maintenance for Military
Family Housing. What is the adequacy of the budget request for these
accounts, and what is the backlog?
Answer. The Department of the Navy's fiscal year 1998 maintenance
request provides sufficient funding to take care of routine
maintenance, preventive maintenance, service calls, and change of
occupancy, and work on the backlog.
The current critical backlog is $3.0 billion, and is projected to
grow to $3.7 billion in fiscal year 1998.
unspecified minor construction
Question. The Unspecified Minor Construction program supports
urgent, unforeseen requirements that cannot wait for the normal
military construction program and a lump sum is appropriated to
accomplish requirements that arise during the year costing between
$500,000 and $1.5 million. The Navy annual requirement for this fund is
about $14 million. However, only $10.6 million is requested. Is this
account under strain, and what is the right number for the fiscal year
1998 budget?
Answer. While the Department would like to have more funds
available to meet unforeseen requirements, the need to balance
competing demands for resources limited our request for UMC funding.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Reid
brac funding for bachelor officers quarters at fallon naval air station
Question. Naval Facilities Engineering Command solicited for bids
to build a Bachelor Officers Quarters (BOQ) at Fallon Naval Air Station
in fiscal year 1997. This project was funded from the BRAC III account
and construction was to begin this year.
In February of this year construction on the BOQ was deferred. What
happened to the funds that were to be used to build this BOQ? How does
this deferment affect operations at Fallon Naval Air Station?
Answer. The BOQ project you refer to is the second phase of an
earlier (fiscal year 1994) project in our BRAC III construction budget.
The first phase, completed in 1996, provided 140 BOQ rooms; the second
phase will provide 81 more rooms. The fiscal year 1997 BRAC III budget
you refer to anticipated income of $244 million from land sales
revenues to offset various implementation costs. The primary method of
land conveyance to date has been Economic Development Conveyance which
have yielded significantly less revenue than anticipated when that
budget submission was prepared. Funding for a number of BRAC
construction projects was not available due to this land sales revenue
shortfall.
The operational impact on Fallon is minimal, and occurs during peak
loading of transient personnel at the base. During these peak times
some transient personnel may be berthed in local hotels. We now plan to
construct the BOQ in fiscal year 1998.
fitness center at fallon naval air station
Question. In last year's Military Construction Appropriation Bill
this committee directed that not less than $400,000 be made available
for the design of a gymnasium at Fallon Naval Air Station (anticipated
cost $5.7M). I understand that planning for this project has not been
initiated and that the gymnasium is not yet in the FYDP.
I am deeply concerned, the Department of Defense echoes this
concern, over the quality of life for our military members.
Conversations with Navy Fallon personnel reveal that overcrowded
conditions and long equipment waits prevent our Sailors from
maintaining their top physical conditioning.
When do you anticipate that this important project will arrive on
the FYDP so that we may move forward with construction? (NOTE: No
progress has been made on this contract even though the report language
said that ``this design contract is to be awarded as early in fiscal
year 1997 as practical.'')
Answer. Preliminary design has been authorized for this project. It
will be considered for inclusion in the FYDP during our program review
this summer.
mess hall addition at fallon naval air station
Question. In last year's Military Construction Appropriation Bill
this committee earmarked not less than $1.3 million for the acquisition
of a mess hall addition at Fallon Naval Air Station. Can you give me an
update on this project?
Answer. Senate Report 104-287 which accompanied the Senate
Appropriations Committee markup of the fiscal year 1997 Military
Construction Appropriation Bill directed the Navy to use $1.3 million
of the $9.973 million provided by the Committee for Navy Unspecified
Minor Construction to construct a Mess Hall Addition. However, because
only $5.115 million was approved in Conference Report 104-721,
additional funds were not appropriated to allow us to proceed with this
project. Since the requirement remains valid, we hope to be able to
award it with fiscal year 1998 funds.
nato infrastructure funding
Question. This military construction budget, at $8.4 billion, is 16
percent smaller than what was appropriated in 1997 ($10 billion). Of
all the account requests, I note that each reflects an overall
reduction from last year's appropriation, with the exception of one:
the NATO infrastructure account.
The request for NATO is greater than what was requested for all
five of our reserve components. Is it wise to give such assistance to
our allies at the expense of our own guard and reserve forces?
Answer. Development of the NATO construction budget is not entirely
within our influence.
NATO is a collective security organization of sixteen sovereign
nations. Program and budget decisions for the NATO military
construction program, now called the NATO Security Investment Program,
are based on consensus among those sixteen nations. The U.S.
contribution to the Alliance is determined by all sixteen member
nations during discussions at Ministerial meetings held in the spring.
Procedures and project execution decisions are likewise arrived at by
consensus by member nations.
The Department of the Navy does program and budget for reserve
military construction projects. The fiscal year 1998 President's budget
request includes $13.9 million budget in fiscal year 1998 and $15.3
million in the fiscal year 1999 Military Construction, Naval Reserve
appropriation. This amount reflects a balance between Navy and Marine
Corps reserve construction requirements and affordability given all
other funding requirements that the Department of the Navy must
consider and fund.
I would note that both active and reserve U.S. naval forces benefit
from the availability of modern NATO support facilities.
Department of the Air Force
STATEMENT OF HON. RODNEY A. COLEMAN, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR MANPOWER,
RESERVE AFFAIRS, INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MAJ. GEN. EUGENE A. LUPIA, THE AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER
BRIG. GEN. PAUL A. WEAVER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
BRIG. GEN. JOHN A. BRADLEY, DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF, AIR FORCE
RESERVE
remarks of senator burns
Senator Burns. The military construction request for the
U.S. Air Force is $1.677 billion. Once again, we want to
recognize the Air Force the way it has handled its needs and
its service to members. While it appears that the Air Force has
managed its construction requirements, it seems many key
quality of life projects are being pushed out in the out-years,
and I have a wee bit of a concern about that.
Representing the Department of the Air Force today is the
Honorable Rodney Coleman, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Installations and
Environment. Sir, we welcome you back to the committee this
morning.
We have asked you to address the fiscal year 1998 military
construction request for Air Force family housing, the Air
Force portion of the base closure account, and requests for the
Air Guard and the Air Force Reserve. Secretary Coleman, may I
ask you to please introduce your witnesses, your backup
witnesses, and you may proceed with your statement. If you want
to make your full statement, that would be all right. But you
can also submit your statement and summarize if you so wish.
I would ask comments from my ranking member, Senator
Murray. I will not forget that any more.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I will
just wait and ask questions after your testimony.
statement of rodney coleman
Mr. Coleman. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Murray.
With me today is the Civil Engineer of the Air Force, Maj.
Gen. Gene Lupia on my right. To my left is Brig. Gen. Paul
Weaver, Deputy Director of the Air National Guard. And on my
far right is Brig. Gen. John Bradley, Deputy to the Chief of
the Air Force Reserve.
We are pleased to be here to discuss with you our $1.68
billion Milcon submittal for active duty Guard, Reserve, and
family housing programs. Over the past 18 months, as you are
well aware, the Air Force has crafted a strategy which spells
out the role of air and space power for the Nation and the core
mission capabilities critical to that strategy.
Our responsibility is to skillfully forge a supporting
facility and infrastructure approach to that strategy. That
approach includes emphasis on supporting new mission beddowns,
protecting the quality of life for our people, and reinvesting
in our few remaining overseas bases.
We developed an integrated priority list based on the most
urgent needs of the total Air Force, integrating new mission,
current mission, and environmental projects for Active, Guard
and Reserve components, and then identified the minimum
requirements to sustain readiness and quality of life.
We are on target to demolish our worn out and obsolete
facilities and infrastructure in order to reduce operations and
maintenance costs. We are also looking very hard at maintaining
only those facilities that we need to meet core mission
requirements. We are proceeding to effectively determine what
we need and to look out for opportunities to consolidate
functions and retain facilities.
But even our best management of declining resources will
not be enough, Mr. Chairman. We have to stretch our dollars and
use every means available to protect our hard-fought position
as the world's most respected air and space force.
Last year's legislation that enabled us to pursue
privatization of family housing and dormitories hits the mark.
We also welcome the opportunity to privatize other assets of
our fiscal plan where it makes economical and operational
sense. We can optimize our resources using better business
practices, privatization, or what we call corporate asset
management. We must think outside the box and embrace
innovations which are not part of our current paradigms.
An example of that is our military housing and dormitory
privatization program. Right now we have 10 privatization
projects at 10 separate installations, which could produce as
many as 4,000 new or renovated housing units for our Air Force
families.
Well, you may ask, so what? Can we not do that with our
regular Milcon funds? The difference--the answer is yes, but
the difference is that with privatizing we are leveraging our
resources for about a three to one return on our tax dollars,
getting three times as many units for the same dollar.
Our people are the foundation of our strength and we must
recruit, train, and retain the highest quality force possible.
In this light, we take the needs of our people very seriously.
Privacy remains the No. 1 concern among our airmen. We have
focused on the buyout of all remaining permanent party gang
latrine dormitories. With your constant support, we will be
able to fully achieve this improvement in the quality living
conditions with the fiscal year 1999 Milcon program. Then we
will focus on depleting our 14,000 room dormitory deficit.
Our fiscal year 1998 quality of life Milcon request
includes the 10 permanent party dormitory projects valued at
$128 million and two fitness centers valued at $6.5 million.
Military family housing is one of our most important
programs. We are requesting $139 million for fiscal year 1998
projects at 16 Conus bases that will construct 70 new houses,
replace 899 existing houses, and replace one housing support
facility. The replacement units will take the place of existing
homes that are no longer economical to maintain.
Our housing budget request reflects our longstanding
commitment to provide our Air Force families with homes and
communities that are as comparable to private sector housing as
we can make them.
So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
committee for its strong support of the Air Force military
construction program and its resulting benefits in Air Force
readiness, recruiting, training, retention, and the quality of
life of our people. We are ready to respond to any of your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rodney A. Coleman
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, good morning. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Department of the Air Force fiscal year 1998 military construction
program.
overview
As the Air Force recognizes its fiftieth anniversary, it is only
fitting that we celebrate it during a watershed year. 1997 will see a
remarkable series of events that will define Air Force direction and
capability for many years to come. Every member of the Air Force will
impact these events, and every member will be affected by them. Our
responsibility now lies in mapping out and understanding this journey's
turning points and major objectives.
The major objectives of the military construction program must be
in line with the corporate Air Force. In that light, we will seek to
follow the path outlined during the long range planning effort. The
plan's vision, based on fundamentally sound core values, includes
creating a corporate identity based on a common understanding of Air
Force core competencies; sustaining our modernization and quality of
life initiatives; and helping to ensure the success of the quadrennial
defense review.
As a result of these goals to support Air Force core competencies,
force modernization, and our people we are focusing on reducing our
physical plant using private sector partnerships and sound business
practices. This will ensure that our infrastructure efficiently
supports necessary Air Force missions and force structure. We are
pursuing this ``rightsizing'' of the Air Force physical plant using a
variety of means which include demolition, consolidation, divestiture
and privatization.
We must also balance installation support requirements, while
accepting a greater level of risk, without diminishing readiness and/or
quality of life. As with previous submissions, installation programs
continue to reflect hard decisions and tough choices. The maintenance
and repair of facilities and infrastructure at Air Force installations
are essential to our core competencies. We are striving to maintain
facilities and infrastructure where Air Force people work and live to
preclude weakening unit readiness, impairing mission accomplishment or
degrading quality of life. The Air Force corporate strategy for the
installation support program includes:
--Ensuring our Milcon program places emphasis on supporting new
mission beddowns and current mission necessities, including
redirecting limited capital investment to our most pressing
requirements.
--Maintaining our operations and maintenance programs to protect the
quality of life of our personnel and their families.
--Reinvesting in the few remaining overseas bases, which even after
host-nation burdensharing have numerous facility needs critical
to Air Force core competencies.
--Maintaining a fundamentally sound, risk-based, environmental
program in view of fiscal constraints.
I must stress, however, that even our best stewardship of declining
resources will not be enough. The Air Force recognizes that we must
look at our installation facility requirements differently than in the
past. This is why the Air Force was very supportive of the fiscal year
1996 legislation enabling us to pursue privatization of military
housing and dormitories. We also welcome the opportunity to privatize
other assets of our physical plant where it makes sense. One example is
the privatization of our base utilities.
The actions outlined in this military construction budget will
fundamentally influence our installation investment strategy and
quality of life well into the next century. Properly done, these
actions will be a powerful investment in the future.
Mr. Chairman, we are cognizant that the Air Force could not
maintain the quality of any of our facilities and the advantages they
render without the strong support we have always received from this
committee, for which we are most appreciative.
With this background, Mr. Chairman, I would like to proceed now to
discuss the major program areas of our Milcon budget request. I will
review the Active Force Program--including military family housing--the
Air National Guard Program, and the Air Force Reserve Program. Finally,
I will address the Air Force part of the Department of Defense budget
request for base realignment and closure accounts.
air force military construction budget
The Air Force Milcon program consists of three principal areas: new
mission, current mission, and design and unspecified minor
construction. New mission construction supports the beddown of new
weapon systems and force structure realignments. Current mission Milcon
revitalizes existing facilities and infrastructure, and builds new
facilities to correct existing deficiencies. Design and unspecified
minor construction includes funds to design our construction projects
and a small program to handle urgent, unforeseen construction
requirements.
Our total Air Force military construction budget request for fiscal
year 1998 is $1.68 billion. This request includes $1.60 billion for
Active duty military construction ($520 million for traditional Milcon
and $1.08 billion for military family housing), $60.0 million for Air
National Guard Milcon, and $14.6 million for Air Force Reserve Milcon.
active duty air force military construction program
The Active Air Force's fiscal year 1998 military construction and
family housing programs were developed using a facility investment
strategy with the following objectives: maintain what we have; beddown
new missions; support quality of life investment; optimize use of
public and private resources; continue demolition program; reinvest
overseas; and continue environmental leadership.
Program Overview
This year we significantly departed from the way Milcon allocation
occurred in the past. The major commands were tasked to submit an
unconstrained list of their budget requirements. Our Milcon integrated
process team, the cornerstone of the Air Force corporate structure,
developed an integrated priority list based on the most urgent needs of
the total Air Force, and integrating new mission, current mission, and
environmental projects for Active, Guard, and Reserve components. This
priority list was presented to the corporate structure--to include the
Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force--for review and
approval.
Current Mission: Maintain What We Have
``Maintaining what we have'' is the investment strategy underlying
our current Milcon program. This concept results in identifying the
minimum requirements to sustain readiness and quality of life. This
strategy is rooted in the stewardship entrusted to us for maintaining
eighty-eight major installations. We are not looking to increase our
spending on infrastructure or new facilities. Conversely, we are
targeting demolition of worn out or obsolete facilities and
infrastructure in order to reduce reoccurring operations and
maintenance costs. During the BRAC process, we deliberately delayed
funding for most of the current mission Milcon while we awaited final
closure decisions.
With the BRAC 95 cycle complete, we are looking at our remaining
installations and assessing their infrastructure and facility needs--
rather than what we would like to have. We are looking very hard at
keeping only those facilities which we need to meet the core
competencies stated by the corporate Air Force.
We will continue our vigil to effectively use available resources
to determine what we need, to care for what we own, and to look for
opportunities to consolidate functions in retained facilities.
Beddown New Missions: Provide Timely Support to Modernization and
Weapon System Beddowns
The Air Force is ever evolving, modernizing and realigning weapon
systems to guarantee future relevancy in an ever changing world. We are
developing, testing and fielding new aircraft, satellites, and
communications systems. We are realigning our aircraft to take better
advantage of their capabilities. This year the integrated
prioritization process funded 62 percent of known mission requirements.
We funded those projects essential for our core modernization as well
as some construction supporting force structure changes.
Military construction is needed to support programs such as the C-
17; joint surveillance and target attack radar system (JOINT STARS);
space based infrared systems;, ballistic early warning system; and
conventional air launched cruise missiles.
C-17
The C-17 Globemaster III aircraft is designed to replace our aging
fleet of C-141 Starlifters. It combines the airlift capabilities of the
C-141, the C-5 galaxy's ability to carry oversize cargo, and the C-130
hercules' ability to land directly on short, forward-located airstrips.
In November 1995, the Defense acquisition board determined that the C-
17 met the Nation's needs, after which, the Under Secretary of Defense
approved the purchase of all 120 aircraft requested.
At that time, McChord Air Force Base, Washington, was designated as
the second active duty operational base for the aircraft. We had
already identified Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina, as the
first active duty operational base, and Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma,
as the C-17 training base. Since then we have identified Thompson
Field, Mississippi, as the Air National Guard operating location.
Military construction projects satisfying the total beddown requirement
at Charleston Air Force base total $144.4 million; with $87.4 million
at Altus Air Force Base; and $133.5 million at McChord Air Force Base.
The fiscal year 1998 program includes both an engine test cell facility
and a maintenance hangar at McChord Air Force Base at a cost of $10
million. Air National Guard beddown requirements at Thompson Field have
not been determined.
JOINT STARS
JOINT STARS is an Army and Air Force system designed to detect,
locate, and classify targets. The system then provides the information
to successfully execute attacks against these targets. The Air Force
main operating base for J-STARS is Robins Air Force Base, Georgia,
where we are requesting $18.7 million for five projects. These projects
will provide facilities needed for continuing beddown of the JOINT
STARS aircraft. Prior year Milcon to support JOINT STARS at Robins Air
Force Base totals $92.0 million. Future Milcon requirements at Robins
Air Force Base totals approximately $13.1 million. There are two
forward operating locations for J-STARS, one in Europe at Raf Fairford,
United Kingdom, and the other in the Pacific, at Kadena Air Base,
Japan. These two locations will require minimal operations,
maintenance, and support facilities for J-STARS due to reuse of
existing facilities as a result of defense drawdowns in Europe and
Japan.
Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)
The goal of the SBIRS program is to consolidate all space based
infrared systems into one integrated architecture. SBIRS replaces the
existing defense support program providing early warning and
assessment. The SBIRS will consist of a mission control station and two
unmanned relay ground stations. It will consolidate the defense support
program functional capability at the mission control station and enable
us to close down two manned overseas ground stations.
The mission control station will be located at Buckley Air National
Guard Base, Colorado, and the two unmanned relay stations will be
located in Australia and Europe. Fiscal year 1997 Milcon totaled $14.4
million and provided the mission control station at Buckley Air
National Guard Base. The $14.0 million Milcon project in fiscal year
1998 will construct the two unmanned remote ground stations.
Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS)
The BMEWS Program provides continuous and supportable missile
warning data to North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Space
Command. The $47 million fiscal year 1998 Milcon project allows BMEWS
beddown at Clear Air Station, Alaska. This upgrades the 1960's
technology to include installation of a precision acquisition vehicle
entry/phased array warning system (PAVE/PAWS) radar that increases the
stations inherent operational capabilities. The technology is required
to maintain the missile warning system well into the next century.
Quality of Life
The Department of the Air Force continues to believe that our
people are the most important asset of our service. The Secretary
maintains that they are the foundation of our strength, and that we
must recruit, train, and retain the highest quality force possible. If
we are to be successful, then this Air Force team must take care of our
people and their families.
Privacy remains the number one concern among our airmen in
unaccompanied personnel housing. As we mentioned last year, the Air
Force has targeted the buyout of all remaining permanent party central
latrine dormitories. With your continued support, we will be able to
conclude this immediate, and most pressing, improvement to quality
living conditions with the fiscal year 1999 Milcon program. The Air
Force will then turn its attention to our 14,000 room deficit. The
support of this and other committees has enabled a one-half billion
dollar investment of Milcon and quality of life enhancement funds over
the last two fiscal years--another great stride in ``putting our people
first.''
The Air Force is continuing its commitment to provide at least a
private sleeping room to every permanent party airman we house. We have
began implementation of new assignment policies which will phase our
junior enlisted personnel into private rooms over the next six fiscal
years.
I would be remiss if I didn't report on how the Air Force used the
additional funds you gave us last year. The $58 million for dormitory
Milcon enabled us to build and revitalize over 1,000 rooms, and the
$108 million in quality of life enhancement funds allowed us to convert
eighteen central latrine dormitories to provide privacy and improve
living conditions for our airmen. It also reduced our most pressing
dormitory maintenance and repair requirements.
Our fiscal year 1998 quality of life Milcon request includes ten
permanent party dormitory projects valued at $128 million, and two
fitness centers for $6.5 million.
Optimize Use of Public and Private Resources
While revolutionary changes in basing requirements are unlikely to
occur over the short term, careful planning is critical to achieving
the desired structure at the appropriate future time without the
unnecessary expenditure of constrained resources. The first essential
step in leveraging our resources is the movement towards better
business practices--privatization, or what we call corporate asset
management (CAM). The greatest obstacle in pursuing CAM is our comfort
with the old and familiar ways of doing business. Unless we
aggressively move beyond those ways with all the ingenuity at our
command, we will not be able to capitalize on the opportunities that
await us.
As we prepare for the first quarter of the 21st century, we must
think ``outside the box'' and embrace innovations far removed from the
paradigms we have today. These include, but are not limited to, changes
in military family housing and dormitory privatization. Right now we
have ten privatization projects at ten installations which could
produce as many as 4,000 new or renovated housing units for our Air
Force family. Well, you may ask so what * * * can't we do that with
regular Milcon funds? The difference is that with privatization, we are
leveraging our resources for a three to one return on our tax dollars--
getting three times as many units for the same dollar.
One final observation: We depend on corporate asset management to
complement our military family housing budget--not to take its place.
We need housing Milcon to meld with funds from the family housing
improvement fund to act as seed money for potential privatization
initiatives. Without the Milcon funding base, privatization as we know
it today would not be possible.
Overseas Milcon
Air Force overseas basing and force structure is finally stable
after years of base closures and major force reductions. In Europe, we
now have six main operating bases: two in Germany, one in Italy, two in
England and one in Turkey. In the Pacific, we have five such bases: two
in Korea and three in Japan. During the recent period of closures and
force structure reductions, we refrained from investing in our overseas
installations. Now that things are more stable, we must prudently
reinvest in these installations. We are actively pursuing NATO funding,
host nation funding, and payment-in-kind; however, the need is bigger
than available burdensharing opportunities can satisfy.
Our 1998 program for our European and Pacific installations
includes $71 million in unclassified Milcon. The program consists of a
fire training facility at Kunsan Air Base, Korea; four dormitory
projects at Kunsan and Osan Air Bases in Korea: Raf Lakenheath,
England; and Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany; a water treatment plant at
Lajes Field, Portugal; and a utility upgrade project and a waste water
disposal system project at Aviano Air Base, Italy. For all European
projects, we are sending a precautionary prefinancing statement to the
NATO infrastructure committees. These statements will permit recoupment
from the NATO infrastructure program if eligibility is subsequently
established.
Environmental Milcon
As we continue our stewardship of the environment, we are dedicated
to improving our already open relationship both with the regulatory
community and with our installation neighborhoods. We not only strive
to ensure our operations meet all environmental regulations and laws,
but we also seek out partnerships with local regulatory and commercial
sector counterparts to share ideas and create an atmosphere of trust.
Our aggressive campaign to foster an environmental ethic within the Air
Force culture has enabled us to sustain operational readiness, be a
good neighbor, and leverage our resources to remain a leader in
environmental compliance and cleanup.
To that end, we have partnered with regulators and local
communities to execute projects supporting the Presidential mandate to
reinvent environmental regulations. These projects support our paradigm
shift to implement pollution prevention projects that eliminate future
compliance requirements. This allows better business decisions both for
us and for others concerned with the fate of our shared environment.
As a result of these cooperative efforts, we have established
schedules for cleanup commensurate with funding levels, responded to
community concerns, preserved precious natural, cultural, and
historical resources, while continuing to maintain a high level of
operational readiness. We also were able to decrease the number of open
notices of violations from 262 in fiscal year 1992 to 35 in fiscal year
1998. This is important for today, and even more important for our
future.
Our environmental compliance Milcon request for fiscal year 1998
totals $32 million for eight, level-1 compliance projects. Our program
focuses on environmental projects for sanitary sewer systems,
wastewater treatment facilities, and fire training facilities. All of
these projects satisfy level-1 requirements. Level-1 compliance
requirements refer to conditions or facilities currently out of
compliance with environmental laws or regulations, including those
which are the subject of a compliance agreement.
I would also like to draw attention to our stewardship of the
Defense environmental restoration account. In fiscal year 1997 we
obligated 34 percent of the budget on actual clean-up actions. This
year we have turned the corner on studies and will use the lion's share
of the account, 82 percent, for actual clean-up activities.
Unspecified Minor Construction (P-341 funds)
We have requested $9 million in fiscal year 1998 for unspecified
minor construction funds (P-341), which will provide the Air Force with
its primary means of responding to small, unforeseen Milcon
requirements that cannot wait for the normal military construction
process. The rapid rate of change taking place in the Air Force is
putting a strain on this account. From fiscal year 1991 through 1995, a
total of $11.9 million was reprogrammed into the account to fund urgent
requirements. The fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1997 accounts
are now fully committed.
Planning and Design
Our request for fiscal year 1998 planning and design is $41
million. These funds are required to complete design of the fiscal year
1999 construction program and to start design of our fiscal year 2000
projects.
military family housing
As in years past, the Air Force leadership considers military
family housing to be one of our most important programs. We are
convinced that no other facility program so greatly influences the
performance and commitment of our people as much as having quality
homes for their families. Maintaining our commitment to the family
housing program is even more important in this era of major force
reductions and increased operating and personnel tempo demands. because
these factors are so stressful for military families, it is imperative
that we continue to emphasize quality of life issues to mitigate the
stress.
Due in large part to strong congressional support, our military
family housing investment program has been sustained during recent
force structure changes. Even so, the average age of our family housing
inventory is 34 years, and over 58,000 of our current 110,000 housing
units do not measure up to contemporary standards. While we definitely
must continue our major improvement and replacement programs, the
current funding stream won't get the job done for at least 26 years.
The Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization Act created the family
housing improvement fund. The authorization act permits military family
housing and dormitory privatization initiatives which enables us to
accelerate improvement and replacement of our existing family housing
inventory. We recently released a request for developer proposals to
provide 420 privately owned housing units at Lackland Air Force Base,
Texas. So, in lieu of spending Milcon dollars for only 140 units, we
will get almost three times as many units for the same amount of money.
That's good business. This is the first of several projects that will
leverage Milcon funds, existing houses, lands, and family housing
improvement fund dollars with private sector capital to satisfy a
portion of our housing needs. We ask for your continued strong support
for our requested investment level so we have sufficient capital to
invest in an accelerated fix of our housing deficit.
Housing Improvements
The Air Force ``whole house/whole neighborhood'' improvement
concept has been extremely successful. Under this concept, we upgrade
older homes to contemporary standards--updating worn-out bathrooms and
kitchens, replacing obsolete utility and structural systems, providing
additional living space as permitted by law, and at the same time,
accomplishing all required maintenance and repair. The result is a very
cost effective investment that extends the life of these houses 25
years. In addition, the ``whole neighborhood'' program provides
recreation areas, landscaping, playgrounds and utility support systems
to give us attractive and functional living environments.
Our fiscal year 1998 improvement request is $102 million. This
amount revitalizes 938 homes at 13 bases. This includes $73.9 million
for 748 homes in the continental United States, $21.6 million for 190
homes overseas, and $6.5 million for three neighborhood improvement
projects.
New Construction
We are requesting $139 million for fiscal year 1998 projects at 16
conus bases to construct 70 new houses, replace 899 existing houses,
and replace one housing support facility. The replacement units will
take the place of existing homes that are no longer economical to
improve.
Operations, Utilities and Maintenance
Our fiscal year 1998 request for family housing operations,
utilities and maintenance is $713 million. These funds are necessary to
operate and maintain the 110,000 homes remaining in the fiscal year
1998 Air Force inventory, representing a replacement value exceeding
$12.5 billion. Approximately 75 percent of this requested funding
represents the Air Force's obligation as homeowners for items such as
utilities, refuse collection, and routine maintenance. The remaining 25
percent is for major maintenance contracts to fix the deteriorating
infrastructure, such as repairs to electrical distribution systems,
streets and roofs.
Leasing
We have requested $117 million for leasing both domestic and
overseas houses.
Our fiscal year 1998 military family housing budget request
reflects our commitment to provide our Air Force families with homes
and communities that are comparable in design and amenities to private
sector housing. This program continues to put our people first by
fostering a sense of community and supporting neighborhood identity. We
seek to achieve a pride of place mentality within our family housing
community. We ask for the support of the committee in approving the
full request for our military family housing program.
air national guard military construction
The Air National Guard is an integral element of the total Air
Force, and has been a full partner in the Air Force mission for a long
time. The Air Force is increasingly using Guard and Air Reserve Forces
whenever and wherever it makes good sense. Air National Guard personnel
operate side-by-side with their active duty counterparts in all
theaters of operation as part of a true total force team. The Air Guard
remains a cost effective, community-based defense force trained and
equipped to rapidly and skillfully respond to the needs of our country,
our states and our local communities. The volunteer spirit of our Air
Guard women and men continues in the finest tradition, history and
culture of the militia of this nation.
Program Overview
The Air National Guard Program for fiscal year 1998 totals $60.0
million, including $49.0 million for military construction, $4.0
million for unspecified minor construction, and $7.0 million for
planning and design. This will support the readiness of Air Guard units
by modifying facilities to support mission beddowns and force structure
changes. It will also ensure compliance with environmental laws and
regulations. It addresses only our most urgent needs, as identified and
prioritized by our integrated project matrix.
New Mission
The fiscal year 1998 new mission Milcon request supports the
continuing trend of transferring an increasing number of different
missions to the Air National Guard. The Milcon portion is $37 million,
which comprises 62 percent of the Air Guard Program.
This new mission budget request includes projects for the B-1
beddown at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia; C-130 conversion at Boise
Air terminal, Idaho; an aircrew combat training system range support
facility at Alpena County Airport, Michigan; and upgrades of base
infrastructure systems at Buckley Air National Guard Base, Colorado.
Environmental Compliance
The Air Guard requests $12.0 million for environmental projects at
eight locations. These projects will bring fire training facilities and
fuel cell/corrosion control hangars into compliance with environmental
regulations, and also provide vehicle washing facilities at two bases.
This supports our goal to ensure that Air Guard bases comply with all
Federal, State and local environmental laws. Our staff continues to
work closely with environmental agencies at every level to resolve and
eliminate all Air Guard notices of violation.
Unspecified Minor Construction
We are requesting $4.0 million for this very important program on
which we depend to satisfy urgent, unforeseen requirements that cannot
wait for the fiscal year 1999 budget. As with past programs, the large
majority of projects are expected to be in direct support of aircraft
conversion and modernization requirements.
Planning and Design
Our 1997 budget request for $7.0 million will allow us to complete
and initiate the design for those projects planned for inclusion in the
respective 1999 and 2000 budget requests.
air force reserve military construction
The Air Force Reserve has emerged from another period of
reorganization, force structure reductions, and constrained budgets
with an increased role in national defense. Our 73,300 reservists now
work and train at 67 locations. The Air Force Reserve is host at four
major installations and eight air Reserve stations, and is a tenant at
55 locations, mostly on Active Air Force bases.
Program Overview
The 1998 Reserve military construction budget request of $14.6
million represents a sound facility investment strategy which is in
line with the objective prioritization matrix executed by the corporate
Air Force. Though the budget is tight, it meets the highest priority
requirements supporting the total Air Force mission. The long-range
strategy prioritizes our Reserve Milcon into four categories:
Included in our $14.6 million fiscal year 1998 Milcon budget
request is $5.2 million for major construction of three projects at
Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio, $4.6 million for unspecified
minor construction, and $1.5 million in planning and design. Our fiscal
year 1998 request also includes two environmental compliance projects,
a fire training facility at Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts,
and a corrosion control facility at Minneapolis-St. Paul Air Reserve
Station, Minnesota. This request adequately funds all Air Force Reserve
new mission requirements.
Environmental Compliance
The top facility priority in our fiscal year 1998 program is to
satisfy our level-1 environmental compliance requirements. One project
will provide an environmentally safe fire-fighter training facility,
and the other will bring a corrosion control facility into compliance
with stringent environmental laws.
New Mission
Having ensured environmental compliance, we then concentrate on new
mission requirements. In fiscal year 1998, we have three projects that
support additional C-130's at Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio.
Unspecified Minor Construction
The Air Force Reserve request $4.6 million in fiscal year 1998 for
unspecified minor construction. As in the case of the active duty Air
Force and the Air National Guard, this authority will provide the
Reserve with its primary means of responding to small unforeseen Milcon
requirements. The current rapid rate of aircraft conversions places
extraordinary demands on this account. To respond to these and other
changes, we need the strong support of this committee for this request.
Planning and Design
Our planning and design request for fiscal year 1998 is $1.5
million. These funds are required to complete design for the fiscal
year 1999 Milcon program, achieve 35 percent design completion for our
fiscal year 2000 program, and fully design all late-to-need 1998 new
mission Milcon projects.
base closure accounts
The Air Force requirements included in the Department of Defense
fiscal year 1998 budget request for the base closure accounts are
designed to support the President's five-part program by continuing to
transfer property at closure installations as quickly and efficiently
as possible to communities for economic reinvestment at the earliest
opportunity. As part of the Defense budget, the Air Force request
reflects a thorough review of all remaining requirements and careful
budgeting to fulfill validated requirements to the greatest extent
possible within the budget constraints of the Defense Department. The
Air Force has significantly improved execution of the BRAC Program,
effectively minimizing the unobligated balances of past years.
As a result of these initiatives, we budgeted $139 million for the
BRAC 1991 account, $120.2 million for BRAC 1993, and $353.4 million to
meet fiscal year 1998 requirements for BRAC 1995. Of these three fiscal
year 1998 budget amounts, $124.6 million support fiscal year 1998
military construction and family housing construction requirements at
realigned bases. This amount completes the construction programs for
BRAC 93, and fully funds fiscal year 1998 construction requirements for
BRAC 95.
The Department of the Air Force continues to be committed to
timely, thorough environmental restoration, and smooth transition of
closing bases to civilian uses as soon as possible. In addition to
turning over closure bases for reuse, we continue the realignment
beddown process at remaining installations to ensure base closure does
not disrupt our operational requirements nor adversely affect quality
of life issues. We appreciate the support of this committee in meeting
these objectives.
conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for its strong
support of the Air Force military construction program and the
resulting benefits to the Air Force in readiness, retention,
recruiting, training and the quality of life for our personnel.
The fiscal year 1998 Air Force military construction submission
reflects the corporate priorities supporting Air Force core
competencies while working to maintain our deteriorating plant. Our
installations constitute a crucial factor in Air Force readiness. We
rely on our bases as places for people to work to effectively project
U.S. air and space power. This budget submission reflects our
commitment to maintain the quality of Air Force installations to help
ensure that the U.S. Air Force remains the world's most respected air
and space force.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I will be
happy to address any questions you may have.
______
Biographical Sketch of Rodney A. Coleman
Rodney A. Coleman is assistant secretary of the Air Force for
manpower, Reserve affairs, installations and environment, Washington,
D.C. He is responsible for the management and policy of all matters
pertaining to the formulation, review and execution of plans and
programs for Air Force military and civilian personnel, Reserve and
Guard forces, installations and environment. He assumed this position
April 14, 1994.
Mr. Coleman was born Oct. 12, 1938, in Newburgh, N.Y. He earned a
bachelor of architecture degree from Howard University in 1963, and was
commissioned as a second lieutenant through the Air Force Reserve
Officer Training Corps program.
He served on active duty from 1963 to 1973, attained the rank of
captain and compiled a distinguished career as an Air Force civil
engineering officer. During his Air Force career, he was directly
responsible for the design and construction management of military
facility projects valued in excess of $10 million. Among the numerous
projects Mr. Coleman was involved in during his military career was
serving as the project architect for the million dollar renovation and
addition to the prestigious Bolling Air Force Base Officers' Club, the
largest Air Force officers' club in the world.
Mr. Coleman is the recipient of the Bronze Star Medal, Republic of
Vietnam Technical Services Honor Medal-First Class, Meritorious Service
Medal and Air Force Commendation Medal. He also served as an augmentee
officer-in-charge of the elite U.S. Air Force Honor Guard. In 1970 he
was one of 17 individuals appointed by the president as a White House
Fellow, and served as a special assistant to the secretary of the
interior.
After separating from the Air Force, he was appointed executive
assistant to the chairman of the District of Columbia City Council.
From 1978 until 1980 he was an architectural design consultant to the
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corp., Washington, D.C. He joined
General Motors in 1980 and served successively as director of
government relations, as director of municipal government affairs, and
as executive director of urban and municipal affairs. Among Mr.
Coleman's responsibilities during his GM career was coordinating the
government relations activities with local governments incident to the
largest plant closing and consolidation activity in the company's
history. More than 30 GM facilities were closed throughout the country
during this rationalization process.
Mr. Coleman has two children, a son, Stephen, and a daughter,
Terri.
education
1963--Bachelor of architecture degree, Howard University,
Washington, D.C.
1988--The Executive Development Program, University of Michigan
Graduate School of Business
career chronology
1. June 1963, commissioned as a second lieutenant through the Air
Force Reserve Officer Training Corps program
2. June 1963-February 1965, chief, requirements and planning
branch, U.S. Air Force Civil Engineering Squadron, Dover Air Force
Base, Del.
3. March 1965-April 1966, engineering officer, U.S. Air Force Civil
Engineering Squadron, Kunsan Air Base, South Korea
4. April 1966-August 1969, project architect, U.S. Air Force Civil
Engineering Squadron, Bolling Air Force Base, D.C.
5. September 1969-June 1970, Air Force representative, U.S. Air
Force Institute of Technology Education-with-industry program, Day and
Zimmerman, Inc., Architects and Engineers, Philadelphia
6. September 1970-September 1971, White House fellow, Special
Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
7. October 1971-July 1972, chief, engineering and construction
branch, 366th Civil Engineering Squadron, Da Nang Air Base, South
Vietnam
8. August 1972-October 1972, director, operations and maintenance
branch, deputy chief of staff, civil engineering, Headquarters 7th Air
Force, Tan Son Nhut Air Base, South Vietnam
9. November 1972-July 1973, staff architect, Headquarters Tactical
Air Command, Langley Air Force Base, Va.
10. August 1973-January 1979, executive assistant to the chairman,
District of Columbia City Council, Washington, D.C.
11. January 1979-October 1980, architectural design consultant,
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corp., Washington, D.C.
12. November 1980-October 1985, director, government relations,
foundry division of General Motors Corp., Saginaw, Mich.
13. November 1985-March 1990, director, municipal government
affairs, General Motors Corp., Detroit
14. March 1990-April 1994, executive director, urban and municipal
affairs, General Motors Corp., Detroit
15. April 1994-present, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
manpower, Reserve affairs, installations and environment, Washington,
D.C.
major awards and decorations
1996--The Howard University Distinguished Alumni Award for
Postgraduate Achievement in Corporate and Government Service
1996--The Lt. Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. Distinguished Achievement
Award, East Coast Chapter of the Tuskegee Airmen
1996--The Black Engineer of the Year Dean's Award
1994--The Newburgh Free Academy Distinguished Alumnus Award
1972--Bronze Star Medal
1972--Republic of Vietnam Technical Services Honor Medal--1st Class
1969--Outstanding Young Men in America
1969--Meritorious Service Medal
1965--Air Force Commendation Medal
1960--PONY Baseball Man of the Year
professional memberships and affiliations
White House Fellows Association
Executive Leadership Council
Air Force Association
Tuskegee Airmen, Inc.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, I have a
couple questions.
aviano ab, italy
I want to start off. We just completed a trip. We visited
Aviano and Prince Sultan. In our planning and our presence in
that part of the world, with security costs--we all understand
what those are, especially at Prince Sultan--what is our long-
range liability, because there is no housing at all for
personnel at Aviano? What is our liability there, and what does
the Air Force have in mind as far as our longevity at Aviano?
Mr. Coleman. I am going to have the civil engineer address
that in more detail. But Aviano is a permanent base for us. It
is one of our overseas bases, whereas Prince Sultan is not. We
are looking at all the leased housing that we can possibly do
at Aviano, and that is why--and some other Milcon at Aviano, to
make that base a base like any other that we have in our
overseas network.
You want to fill in, Gene?
General Lupia. Senator, I am on the senior executive review
group at Aviano that meets there every 3 months to go through
the construction program beddown, and we are, in fact, creating
some very permanent facilities there, mostly paid for by the
NATO Program. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of the
bill is paid for by the NATO Program.
In terms of housing, we right now have given Aviano 1,000
lease points, as we call them, to be able to lease houses off
base. Most of these houses are individually leased, and there
are some very small complexes, 22 houses, 24 houses, et cetera.
But we have a submission from our headquarters at Ramstein that
would allow the Italian developers to create a 500-unit housing
complex for us. They would not necessarily all be in one place.
There could be a number of parcels of property. But we would
hope, through a privatization effort much like we have going on
here in the United States, that we would be able to release a
request for proposal for 500 units of family housing, so that
we could get our people closer to Aviano.
The problem is that many of the people have to live a long
way and travel those very narrow, two-lane roads in order to
get to work. So we think we are on the verge of solving a good
portion of the housing problem.
This month, actually April, we will cut the ribbon on two
big dormitories that have been constructed at Aviano for 552 of
our airmen. So we will be able to get a number of our airmen
back onto base at Aviano. And we have additional dormitories in
the program.
At Prince Sultan--I was through there I think just a little
bit before you. At Prince Sultan, we are hoping that that
housing complex will be paid for by the Saudis. Our Government
has requested that. I think the Saudis have responded favorably
to that. And that is how we would intend to solve the housing
problem at Prince Sultan.
Senator Burns. I think those negotiations were ongoing as
we were there, and I have not followed up.
General Lupia. Yes, sir.
I believe the first commitment we got from the Saudis was
that they would pay $100 million toward the bill. Our
Government responded that that was not enough, and that we are
now up to a commitment of about $180 million from the Saudis.
Senator Burns. Well, General, I will tell you. I was there
during Desert Shield and just after Desert Storm. I could not
believe my eyes, because I think when the Air Force first went
down there during Desert Shield I do not even think you had a
taxiway to the main runway. I think everything had to be built,
tarmac and the whole thing. Is that correct?
General Lupia. That is correct, sir.
Senator Burns. Everybody was operating under tents.
Has the Air Force made progress in securing a lease for
Aviano with the Italian Government? Have we got a formal
agreement with the Italian Government for Aviano, or is that
still----
General Lupia. I do not know the answer to that question,
Mr. Chairman. I will have to provide it for the record.
[The information follows:]
HQ USAFE has leasing agreements throughout the Aviano area. These
leases are off-base for support purposes (e.g., hospital, school,
regional support group administrative facilities, OSI facility, AAFES
warehouse, etc.). The Italian government provided the Zappala area to
the United States without a lease and at no cost. There are no plans to
lease Aviano Air Base. One hundred tents (greenbacks) are being used
there, solely for contingency purposes. HQ USAFE is working towards a
formal agreement with the Italian government for Aviano. The original
basing agreement is the 1954 Bilateral Infrastructure Agreement, which
the Italians feel is outdated. USAFE presence at Aviano is governed by
a memorandum of understanding (30 Nov 93) and a technical agreement (11
Apr 94), both of which fall under the framework of the 1954 Bilateral
Infrastructure Agreement. In early 1995, the United States and Italy
agreed to standardize basing agreements and, when possible, develop a
subordinate and separate technical agreements for each location. The
technical agreement is part of the overall basing agreement being
developed in Italy for the purpose of updating the support procedures
initiated under the Bilateral Infrastructure Agreement. The current
Aviano technical agreement is being updated by HQ USAFE and will be
presented to the Italians in May 1997.
General Lupia. I do know that the new piece of property we
have at Aviano, called the Zappola area, was given to us by the
Italian Government. But in terms of the actual country to
country agreement for the lease at Aviano, I think we would
have to provide that for the record.
Mr. Coleman. We will supply that to you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. When we were there there was no formal
agreement and there was some concern on the committee, the
Appropriations Committee. There was concern about that there
should be some formal agreement with regard to Aviano.
military housing privatization initiative
Your assessment, Mr. Secretary? Your assessment of military
housing privatization initiative? Should the initiative be
extended to barracks?
Mr. Coleman. Absolutely. We are looking at it for our
barracks, dormitories. We do not have a specific area where we
are doing it now because we are studying it, looking at it. But
it makes sense, sir, to look at every aspect of how we can
bring in the private sector to assist us in our very stringent
budget that we have. That is why we are so happy that we have
your support in doing this.
Senator Burns. The extended housing and, of course, the
leveraging of those dollars, of course. And then when you go
into a BRAC round--and I want to congratulate you. I think the
Air Force and the Navy has done a very good job in protecting
its liabilities in the event of a BRAC closing and what can be
done.
I would suggest that the exposure, the liability exposure,
be somewhat kept to a minimum if we possibly can. Do you think
we will have another BRAC round for the Air Force?
Mr. Coleman. Do not know, sir. I would assume that--sir,
you and I know that we are----
Senator Burns. All your flag officers, that money is going
to go to the Marine Corps. You remember that. We have got it at
risk here. [Laughter.]
Mr. Coleman. Sir, I think that we are looking at a few
things in our QDR exercise. What that reveals I do not know. I
am working on the infrastructure panel. We are supplying some
information to that process. It has to be studied. All things
have to be weighed. We do not have a definitive list. I do not
know what our exact excess capacity is. But all of that will
come out in due time.
Senator Burns. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
budget for reserve components
On the budget request for the Air National Guard, $60.2
million, that is less than one-third of the amount that this
committee appropriated last year. Can you tell me if that is
adequate and, if not, what you think the appropriate amount
should be?
Mr. Coleman. Senator Murray, as you know, the Chief said
recently, and the Secretary, when they were up here that we
have used Milcon as a billpayer, and we did that for a
definitive reason, to get money into modernization. The racking
and stacking through the corporate process of what we have
presented you includes Guard and Reserve input and
prioritization of their projects.
I will allow, of course--not allow, but I will ask the
Guard and Reserve to respond on their behalf with this. But we
feel it does, Senator. What the Guard and Reserve has in there
is really adequate for their priorities at this juncture. We
hope that after the next two submittals, 1998 and 1999, that we
are able to ramp up, use our money more for military
construction than we are on this submittal.
Senator Murray. Well, I wonder if you can comment, because
the Air Force Reserve is also less than one-third of last year,
if you can comment on that.
Mr. Coleman. Well, we make no bones about it, that we did
take our money and prioritize it more toward modernization than
we have in the past.
Paul, John, if you wish to.
General Weaver. Yes, ma'am. As you know, we sit at the same
table with our active duty counterparts and we have done that
for many years. And I think the Air Force--I know the Air Force
sets the standard as far as its use of the Reserve components.
As Mr. Coleman stated, we go through the process, through the
Board, to the Air Force councils as our constrained budget. We
look at the priorities both within the Air Force, the Air Force
Reserve, and the Air National Guard. And for what we have,
within the constraints of the budget, it is adequate.
I mean, we have got a $1.4 billion backlog in current
mission Milcon. I know that, everyone else knows that.
Milcon backlog
Senator Murray. 1?
General Weaver. $1.4 billion.
Senator Murray. Backlog?
General Weaver. Backlog, in the Air National Guard current
mission. And we are hoping to get better. We would need
approximately about $160 million a year in the out years to
help solve that. With the budgetary constraints that we do
have, and we understand that as a total force, that the
priorities are set by the Chief and the Secretary, and we
totally support that.
We also totally support the great support that we have in
Congress and from you all in allowing us the additional funds
that you do at times give us. And I can tell you and testify to
you that every dollar that you do give us for additional Milcon
goes to our combat capability, our combat readiness in the Air
Force National Guard and Air Force Reserve, and that is why you
have got a Reserve component in the Air Force that is the most
combat-capable Reserve component in DOD, and in large measure
as a result of the additional add-ons that you have given us,
and we enjoy that.
But we also support the President's budget and we also have
to operate within the constraints of that budget, Senator.
General Bradley. Senator Murray, I would echo essentially
what General Weaver has said. The Air Force has had to make
some very difficult decisions with its budget levels and, as
General Weaver has said, the Air Force Reserve has been very
involved in the Air Force prioritization process, in making all
budget decisions, whether it is in Milcon or in all other
areas.
So we are very satisfied that we have been included in the
process. We are adequately funded for this year and we
appreciate what the committee has done for us in past years as
well.
We have needs in the Air Force Reserve. We want to have
quality of facilities for our people. And we think that the
levels that we have this year are adequate. But we are very
proud to be a part of the Air Force team and be involved in the
prioritization process.
We believe that the right thing to do is to make decisions
for the total Air Force, and we do that through the
prioritization process for Milcon projects that we have. So we
believe that the level is correct for this year.
Senator Murray. What would be the immediate impact if we
just gave you the budget request that is in here this year?
General Bradley. Senator Murray, if we received what we
have asked for in the President's budget, we will be just fine.
We will be able to operate without reducing any level of
training or with no reduced levels of readiness. The program we
asked for in the budget is adequate.
General Weaver. Same with the Air National Guard.
Senator Murray. What will happen in the out-years if we do
not, if we funded this request this year and keep going down?
What will we eventually see?
General Weaver. Eventually that will lead to our combat
capability decreasing as well, absolutely.
Senator Murray. OK. So my question is how vital are the
contributions of your agencies in a wartime situation?
wartime contributions of reserve components
Mr. Coleman. Absolutely essential.
General Weaver. We provide 40 percent of the combat
capability of the total Air Force between the Guard and
Reserve. If you look at the total Air Force budget, the $4
billion is our budget in the Air National Guard and $3 billion
in the Air Force Reserve. So if you are looking at a $66 or $62
billion Air Force budget, we do provide a lot of combat
capability of the total force with the Reserve components.
Lessening our quality, our quality of life issues being the
facilities in which our people work on the weekends, if we see
a degradation in that it is also going to lead to a degradation
of our combat capability as well.
Senator Murray. Are you going to be able to recruit?
General Weaver. We still will be able to recruit.
Senator Murray. Will it make it more difficult?
General Weaver. I think it will. Yes, it will.
General Bradley. Yes, ma'am. I would again agree with what
General Weaver has said. If these levels were to continue to
reduce in the future, it would certainly impact the quality of
our facilities, our ability to train and to maintain our
readiness. It would certainly impact our recruiting ability and
would impact retention highly, because our people deserve, of
course, to have good facilities to train in. If we cannot in
future years provide adequate facilities, then our retention
would suffer greatly.
It is a great quality of life issue, as General Weaver
says, because we do not have housing for Reserve Forces, of
course. The facilities we work and train in as reservists and
guardsmen are our quality of life, and we do provide great
combat capability for the Air Force every day around the world.
We are working side-by-side with the Active Air Force. So we
need to continue to fund our facilities in future years at the
proper levels.
Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, you say in your statement
that:
The Air Force leadership considers family housing to be one
of our most important programs. Even so, the average age of our
family housing inventory is 34 years and over 58,000 of our
current 110,000 housing units do not measure up to contemporary
standards.
Given your testimony and the priorities that have been set
by the Secretary, it is somewhat perplexing to see that your
budget actually calls for a 20-percent reduction over last
year's actual appropriation for new construction of family
housing. Do you think that this reduction reflects an adequate
emphasis on the quality of life of Air Force personnel?
family housing budget request
Mr. Coleman. Yes, ma'am. Given what we have to work with in
this overall budget, we are asking for about $1.08 billion for
military family housing and about $595 million for Milcon. We
feel, given our long-range program--privatization, Milcon,
outsourcing, prudent RPM, taking care of other costs like
utilities and infrastructure costs hopefully--that our plan to
build out and to get all of our housing up to our standards, we
can do it.
Gene, if you want to.
General Lupia. Senator, the Air Force request in the
President's budget this year is actually larger than our
request in the President's budget last year. For new
construction last year we asked the Congress for $232 million.
This year we are asking for $253 million.
Senator Murray. The appropriation was different than the
request, though.
General Lupia. Yes, Senator, it was. We were plussed up
from the $232 million I just mentioned to $317 million for new
construction. But our actual budget in the operations and
maintenance account includes an increase of somewhere around 2
percent for increased cost of doing business.
At the same exact time, we went from a housing inventory of
114,000 down to 110,000 with the closure of March Air Force
Base or transfer of March Air Force Base, closure or lease, et
cetera. So we have a smaller inventory by 4,000 houses. We
asked for a little bit of money to take care of them.
On the construction side, we actually increased our money
by $20 million. The Air Force really is committed to housing
and the dormitory program as well for enlisted folks.
usaf survival school
Senator Murray. Let me ask you one more question, Mr.
Chairman. As you know, Fairchild Air Force Base is home to the
USAF Survival School to train our pilots how to survive
difficult and traumatic situations, much like the survival
school graduate Scott O'Grady did in Bosnia. Would you regard
the survival school program as part of what your testimony
terms the ``Air Force core competencies''?
Mr. Coleman. Absolutely.
Senator Murray. Well, given the priority to support these
competencies, does your budget adequately support the facility
at Fairchild Air Force Base?
Mr. Coleman. That I do not know specifically, if there is a
line item in there for the Fairchild site.
General Lupia. Our emphasis, Senator, at Fairchild Air
Force Base is to bed down 135's, the tankers. After the Air
Force's consolidation, we wound up with tankers in our Air
Force at three bases, one of which is Fairchild, as you know,
Grand Forks and McConnell. When we put additional squadrons
into Fairchild, we have really concentrated in our budget over
the last few years and in the coming years over building
squadron operations and aircraft maintenance units at
Fairchild.
So that has really been the highest priority for us there.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
General Lupia. That is what is in our program again this
year.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
air guard budget request
Senator Burns. Mr. Secretary, I have just a couple other
questions. We have been looking at housing amounts and we are
following up on that, and I appreciate your efforts there. I
am, like Senator Murray, still concerned about the Guard. I do
not think $60 million adequately does the job that I think we
ought to do, especially if 40 percent of our mission depends on
them being capable and ready.
In my State I have F-16's in my Guard. We are very proud of
the Montana Air Guard up there. I think they fulfill their
mission, although they have not been anywhere. That is where I
got my 9G pin, so I do not want to be fiddling around up there.
General Weaver. They are an outstanding unit, sir. They are
an outstanding unit.
Senator Burns. They really are, and I think they have a
mission and they do very good at it.
But I want to just caution you, I think. I want to work
with you on that particular end of this budget and with the
President to make sure that--40 percent is a big whack.
General Weaver. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. You are not talking about 10 percent or 20
percent here. Should something happen--and we still, to my
estimation, live in kind of a rough neighborhood, and I think
we see some serious things developing a lot closer to home than
we think, with some very bad situations that could develop into
some major confrontations.
So I want to work with you and the President to make sure
that we have got all of our bases covered, so to speak,
especially when we start talking about the Guard and Reserves.
So I have sort of a soft spot in my head for that.
That is all the questions I have. I want to thank you for
coming this morning.
Additional committee questions
Do you have other questions?
Senator Murray. No; that is all I have.
Senator Burns. We certainly appreciate your cooperation and
look forward to working with you as this process moves along.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Burns. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
Question. I have noted that the Air Force has several privatization
projects under development. However, I am concerned that these projects
do not significantly reduce the housing deficit situation, but rather
improve the quality of family housing. What is your assessment of this
issue ?
Answer. The Air Force's housing investment plan puts primary
emphasis on reducing the significant revitalization backlog on our
existing housing units. As a result, our emphasis to date in housing
privatization has been to leverage our investment funds to accelerate
the buyout of our maintenance backlog. As we continue to mature our
housing privatization program, we will look at addressing the deficit
situation.
Question. What is the Air Force overseas military construction
requirement in the fiscal year 1998 budget request?
Answer. The Air Force fiscal year 1998 Milcon request includes
$102M for overseas requirements.
Question. Are we asking our allies to help fund some of the Air
Force's requirements in overseas areas? Is this strategy working? How
can we ensure that the U.S. doesn't pay the total bill for stationing
our forces in their country?
Answer. We are asking our allies to support our facility
requirements in overseas areas to the maximum extent possible and they
are contributing significantly. We are aggressively screening all
projects for potential allied funding eligibility to garner as much
allied support as possible. We must continue to request Milcon to
support urgent operational and quality of life requirements which are
not eligible or cannot wait for allied funding. Our allies have been
providing support for Air Force requirements as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Country ------------------------------
1994 1995 1996 1997 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany (PIK)............................ ..... 1 18 13
Germany (FAG)............................ 18 22 22 ........
NATO..................................... 69 105 108 235
NATO recoupment.......................... 8 24 5 31
Korea (RFCP)............................. 9 16 14 15
Korea (CDIP)............................. 6 11 13 10
Japan (JFIP)............................. 139 305 363 311
------------------------------
Totals............................. 249 484 543 615
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fiscal year 1997 column shows expected funding levels.
PIK: Payment in Kind.
FAG: Frankfurt Airport Authority, one-time agreement to construct
facilities on Ramstein AB due to Rhein Main AB drawdown.
NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program.
NATO Recoupment: Repayment for U.S. prefinanced NATO eligible projects.
RFCP: Republic of Korea Funded Construction Program.
CDIP: Combined Defense Improvement Projects.
JFIP: Japanese Facilities Investment Program.
Question. How much money did the Air Force receive in fiscal year
1996 and anticipate receiving from NATO infrastructure fund? Are we
getting our fair share?
Answer. The Air Force received $108 million in fiscal year 1996 and
anticipates receiving $235 million in fiscal year 1997 from the NATO
Security Investment Program (NSIP). Additionally, we received $5
million in fiscal year 1996 and expect $31 million in fiscal year 1997
as recoupment for NATO eligible projects prefinanced with U.S. dollars.
Yes, the Air Force is getting its fair share.
Question. It appears that the only Air National Guard Milcon in the
fiscal year 1998 budget request is to accommodate new missions and
environmental compliance. Is the level adequate for the Air National
Guard? What kind of things will not get done with the proposed $60.2
million budget?
Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) facility investment strategy
prioritizes military construction (Milcon) requirements as follows:
environmental compliance, new mission, and then current mission.
Although the fiscal year 1998 budget does address the ANG's most urgent
facility needs, some new mission and numerous current mission projects
had to be slipped to later years. These requirements are identified in
the ANG's Future Years Defense Plan.
Question. The Air Force Reserve Budget again looks very slim this
year. What does the $14.5 million accomplish? Does it provide for any
quality of life initiatives?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command's $14.53 million fiscal year
1998 Milcon budget request includes two (2) level 1 environmental
compliance projects at $3.35 million, three (3) projects at $5.20
million that support the robust of C-130 aircraft at Youngstown ARS,
unspecified minor construction at $4.46 million, and planning/design at
$1.52 million.
Due to higher Air Force funding priorities, the Air Force Reserve
Command was unable to include any quality of life initiatives in the
fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Question. How can the Reserve components maintain parity with the
Active Air Force unless they are truly resourced adequately, especially
in military construction?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command can maintain military
construction parity with the Active Air Force if adequately resourced.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
request for air national guard
Question. Do you regard the budget request for the Air National
Guard, at $60.2 million, less than one-third of the amount this
committee appropriated last year, as adequate? What is the right number
for fiscal year 1998? What would be the result if this committee
decided to endorse the budget request, and added nothing to it?
Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) was unable to fully fund its
military construction (Milcon) requirements due to higher Air Force
budget priorities. While the fiscal year 1998 budget request is the
lowest in 18 years, it does address the ANG's most urgent facility
needs. If the committee decided to endorse the budget request, the ANG
would still be able to perform its missions. However, the deferral of
Milcon projects causes converting units to use inefficient workarounds
for longer periods of time and severe current mission facility
deficiencies to remain uncorrected.
request for air force reserve
Question. Do you regard the budget request for the Air Force
Reserve, at $14.5 million, less than one-third of the amount
appropriated last year? Is the $14.5 million adequate? Should we
increase it? What is your professional recommendation?
Answer. Although the Air Force Reserve Command's fiscal year 1998
budget request of $14.5 million is, indeed, one-third the amount
appropriated last year, we consider it adequate in the constrained
military budget of today. If funds became available to increase the Air
Force's Milcon program, the Air Force Reserve Command could execute an
annual Milcon program of $86 million. This would include $73 million
for Milcon projects, $5 million for unspecified minor construction, and
$8 million for planning and design. If funds do become available, my
recommendation is to increase our Milcon program to an executable
level.
role of air guard and reserve in war
Question. Does the cut in the Military Construction Budget
reflected in your request indicate that the Air Force can do without
the Guard and Reserve in a wartime situation? How vital are the
contributions of these agencies to the warfighting capacity of the Air
Force?
Answer. Our reduced total force Military Construction (Milcon)
requests for the next two years are a deliberate resource
prioritization decision. We see this as a temporary measure to help pay
for critical force modernization in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999. The Air Force emphatically cannot do without the Air National
Guard (ANG) and the Air Force Reserve (AFR) in wartime or in
peacetime--they are an integral part of the Air Force's operations
daily and partners in the total force. Today, for example, the Guard is
providing 12 of the 30 combat aircraft flying in Southwest Asia as part
of Air Expeditionary Force 97-1. The Reserve is a vested partner in
every operational mission the Air Force has, from airlift and aerial
refueling to fighters and bombers, to aeromedical evacuation and
satellite operations. Both the ANG and the AFR represent large portions
of total Air Force combat capability and wartime contingencies only
increase their participation.
host nation support
Question. We have in the budget a rather robust request for both
U.S. facilities construction abroad, and for NATO infrastructure
funding. Are we sure that we have gone as far as we can to secure
supporting funding from host nations, particularly Germany, where these
facilities are going to be built? I understand the Japanese pay for
pretty much everything, but there are some who feel that the Germans
could be more supportive, and that the funding by NATO, and by the host
nations in terms of both funding and so-called ``payment-in-kind'' is
insufficient and not timely enough to meet our requirements. What is
the situation?
Answer. The Air Force fiscal year 1998 Milcon request includes
$102M for overseas requirements. Only one project, Spangdahlem
Dormitories at $18.5M, is proposed for Germany. We significantly
reduced overseas Milcon investment during the overseas drawdown. The
basing and force structure are now stabilized. We are asking our allies
to support our facility requirements in overseas areas to the maximum
extent possible and they are contributing significantly. We must
continue to request Milcon to support urgent operational and quality of
life requirements which are not eligible or cannot wait for allied
funding. Our allies have been providing support for Air Force
requirements as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Country ------------------------------
1994 1995 1996 1997 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany (PIK)............................ ..... 1 18 13
Germany (FAG)............................ 18 22 22 ........
NATO..................................... 69 105 108 235
NATO recoupment.......................... 8 24 5 31
Korea (RFCP)............................. 9 16 14 15
Korea (CDIP)............................. 6 11 13 10
Japan (JFIP)............................. 139 305 363 311
------------------------------
Totals............................. 249 484 543 615
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fiscal year 1997 column shows expected funding levels.
PIK: Payment in Kind.
FAG: Frankfurt Airport Authority, one-time agreement to construct
facilities on Ramstein AB due to Rhein Main AB drawdown.
NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program.
NATO Recoupment: Repayment for U.S. prefinanced NATO eligible projects.
RFCP: Republic of Korea Funded Construction Program.
CDIP: Combined Defense Improvement Projects.
JFIP: Japanese Facilities Investment Program.
funding for the dormitory privatization effort
Question. The fiscal year 1997 Appropriations Act provides $5
million to support a dormitory privatization effort. How much is the
fiscal year 1998 request, and is that adequate?
Answer. The Air Force has no request for this purpose for fiscal
year 1998. We are studying the application of the housing privatization
authorities in order to determine how to best integrate the
privatization tools into our dormitory investment plan. We plan to
complete that study by May 1997.
air guard future years defense plan
Question. This Committee in last year's committee report directed
that the ``National Guard Bureau develop and provide a future years
defense plan to the appropriate committees not later than April 20,
1997''. What is the status of this planning action?
Answer. In accordance with the fiscal year 1997 Appropriations
Conference Report, the Air National Guard (ANG) included the Future
Years Defense Plan (FYDP) in its February 1997 fiscal year 1998/1999
President's Budget submission. The FYDP identifies the ANG's military
construction requirements through fiscal year 2003.
infrastructure
Question. The infrastructure reductions resulting from the rounds
of BRAC that we have conducted amount to an overall DOD reduction of
some 18 percent. While this has been difficult, our overall force
reductions have been far more substantial than that, over 30 percent.
Doesn't this mean that we still have far too much infrastructure for
our requirements, and that we should look again at reducing
infrastructure. Would you support another round of BRAC? If not, why
not?
Answer. The need for another round of Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) and its timing depends on the results of the Quadrennial Defense
Review, currently underway, and appropriate legislation.
privatization of utilities
Question. I understand that privatization of utilities at our bases
has been lagging. Is this the case? What is the problem in the
privatization of utility infrastructure, and what can be done to speed
this process up? I understand that the Administration has been
considering proposed legislation for utility privatization--is this the
case, and what is the status of this legislative proposal?
Answer. Our long term goal is to turn utility systems over to the
private sector where there is no readiness impact and it makes economic
sense. Currently, the services have to seek specific legislative
language for each utility privatization project that they propose to
accomplish. The process of privatization would go quicker if more
general legislative authority was provided to pursue these projects
with proper congressional notification. OMB has approved OSD release of
proposed legislation for inclusion in a general authorizations request
to Congress.
waiting list for base housing
Question. In general, can you characterize the problem of waiting
lists for base housing? What is the backlog, and what is the affect on
morale? How can we eliminate this problem in the long run?
Answer. There are housing shortages at 65 of 79 Air Force bases.
The majority of families on the waiting list are having to pay 20
percent out-of-pocket instead of the Congressional intended 15 percent
to supplement BAQ/VHA. Some families, including those with deployed
member spouses, want to live on base for safety and security as well as
access to community support facilities.
There are 41,000 families on waiting lists for government-provided
family housing. The average waiting time is from 12 to 24 months. This
impacts morale as it makes on-base housing impossible for families who
then must seek off-base housing. We are expanding our efforts to
provide safe and affordable community housing through a ``Housing Set-
aside'' program. This provides for landlords and property managers to
house service members at below market rates for guaranteed rents paid
by allotment.
budget benefits of privatization of housing
Question. The housing construction budget is down more than 30
percent from last year. Does this mean we have a less severe problem
than last year? What does this say about our commitment to Quality of
Life initiatives?
Answer. The Air Force requested $231 million for the fiscal year
1997 family housing construction program. With strong support from
Congress, the program was increased by $86 million (Congress
appropriated $317 million for the program). Due to current budget
constraints and the need to balance the requirements for both
modernization and quality of life, the Air Force requests $253 million
in the fiscal year 1998 budget. Although it is $64 million, or 20
percent, less than the fiscal year 1997 appropriated amount, it is an
increase of $22 million, or 9.5 percent, to the fiscal year 1997 budget
request. The Air Force continues to have a backlog of housing
revitalization needs, however; we are very much committed to our
``people'' program and support the Quality of Life initiatives.
Question. Do you believe the housing budget is adequate for fiscal
year 1998? What is the right number? How many housing units does a 30
percent reduction represent?
Answer. We believe the fiscal year 1998 Air Force housing budget
adequately addresses our most critical housing needs given the current
budget constraints. With the current funding level, it will take 26
years to reduce our revitalization backlog of 58,000 units. An
additional $100 million in fiscal year 1998 would be needed to
accelerate the revitalization from 26 years to a more manageable 20
years. The $64 million difference between the fiscal year 1997
appropriation and the fiscal year 1998 request represents renovation or
replacement of about 600 housing units.
new public/private housing initiative in dod
Question. What is your assessment of the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative? What are the long term impacts that we can
expect in the way of housing construction? Can the initiative be
extended to the construction of barracks as well? What can we expect to
see in the way of projects in the current calendar year?
Answer. We are very excited about the new housing privatization
authorities and are working an aggressive program to institutionalize
these tools as an additional way to address our family housing
concerns. The request for proposal on our lead privatization project at
Lackland AFB was advertised on 11 Feb 97. The project calls for a
developer to design, construct, maintain, own, and manage a housing
development of 420 units on 96 acres of outleased base property. Award
is anticipated in late 1997. We are also working to develop our other
nine active family housing projects and will notify you as we approach
release of the request for proposal on each project.
The Air Force is studying the application of housing privatization
authorities in order to determine how to best integrate the
privatization tools into our dormitory investment plan. We plan to
complete that study by May 1997.
community development facilities
Question. What is in this budget in the way of community
facilities, such as child care or child development centers, physical
fitness centers, community centers? How many of each, roughly are in
the budget? Is it true that there are only 2 gymnasiums and no Child
Development Centers in the Air Force budget?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 budget includes two Physical Fitness
Centers. There are no Child Development Centers or Community Centers.
The Military Construction (Milcon) Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP)
includes 8 Child Development Projects, 17 Physical Fitness Centers and
19 Community facilities. Additional Milcon requirements exist beyond
the FYDP.
Question. The Marsh Commission on Quality of Life issues
recommended 44 (forty four!) fitness centers and child development
centers. What is the need for such facilities? What is the unfunded
need for these type of facilities?
Answer. A 1995 AF-wide quality-of-life survey rated fitness centers
as the most important community support program by almost two-to-one
(over four-to-one for our junior enlisted personnel.) We have already
conducted independent needs assessment studies that validate the need
for major fitness center renovation or construction at many bases. Two
fitness center projects, one for Maxwell AFB and one for the Air Force
Academy, are included in the 1998 Budget Request. Seventeen other
fitness center projects are currently in the Milcon Future Year Defense
Plan (FYDP) at the following locations:
Aviano AB, Italy
Barksdale AFB, LA
Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ
Grand Forks AFB, ND
Hanscon AFB, MA
Holloman AFB, NM
Kirtland AFB, NM
Langley AFB, VA
Little Rock AFB, AR
Los Angeles AFB, CA
MacDill AFB, FL
Malmstrom AFB, MT
Robins AFB, GA
Vance AFB, OK
Vandenberg AFB, CA
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH
Child development centers were ranked number two behind fitness
centers. Despite the large number of centers constructed in recent
years, we have also identified a need for additional child development
centers. Eight of these child development projects are currently in the
Milcon FYDP at the following locations:
Andrews AFB, MD
Bolling AFB, D.C.
Eglin AFB, FL
Falcon AFB, CO
Luke AFB, AZ
MacDill AFB, FL
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (2 centers)
Scott AFB, IL
Question. Adequacy of funding for Maintenance and Repair of
Military Family Housing and Real Property Maintenance for Military
Family Housing. What is the adequacy of the budget request for these
accounts and what is the backlog?
Answer. The $432M request in the fiscal year 1998 budget is
adequate to address the most pressing maintenance requirements for our
houses. However, it is not enough to satisfy all our requirements. The
Air Force will need an additional $104M to stop the growth of deferred
maintenance and repair (DMAR), estimated at $1.06B at the end of fiscal
year 1998.
unspecified minor construction
Question. The Unspecified Minor Construction program supports
urgent, unforeseen requirements that cannot wait for the normal
military construction program and a lump sum is appropriated to
accomplish requirements that arise during the year costing between
$500,000 and $1.5 million. The Air Force annual requirements for this
fund is about $15 million. However, only $8.5 million is requested. Is
this account under strain, and what is the right number for the fiscal
year 1998 budget?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 $8.5M request is sufficient to meet
our most urgent needs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Reid
privatization of military housing and utilities
Question. In your prepared statement you remarked that the Air
Force was seeking to support its core competencies, force
modernization, and quality of life. To do this you are focusing on
reducing the physical plant using private sector partnerships and sound
business practices. You discussed that this would be accomplished
through the use of consolidation, divestiture, and privatization. Would
you please update me on your progress to privatize military housing and
utilities.
Answer. In family housing we have an aggressive program with 10
active projects. The request for proposal on our lead privatization
project at Lackland AFB was advertised on 11 Feb 97. The project calls
for a developer to design, construct, maintain, own, and manage a
housing development of 420 units on 96 acres of outleased base
property. The units will be rented to E-3 through E-7 personnel from
the Lackland community. Award is anticipated in late 1997. We are
continuing to work the remaining projects and will notify you as we
approach release of the request for proposal on each project.
In regards to utilities, our long term goal is to turn these
systems over to private/public ownership where there is no readiness
impact and it makes economic sense. OMB has approved OSD release of
proposed legislation for inclusion in a general authorizations request
to Congress.
air national guard funding level
Question. The fiscal year 1998 military construction request for
the Air National Guard is only $60 million. This is less than one-third
of what was appropriated to the Air National Guard for 1997. Do you
regard this an adequate funding level? What would be the long-term
impact to the Air National Guard if Congress simply endorsed this
budget providing no plus ups?
Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) was unable to fully fund its
military construction (Milcon) requirements due to higher Air Force
budget priorities. While the fiscal year 1998 budget request is the
lowest in 18 years, it does address the ANG's most urgent facility
needs. If the committee decided to endorse this budget without plus-
ups, the long-term effects would be cumulative and eventually degrade
ANG readiness and quality of life. Deferring Milcon projects forces new
mission units to use inefficient workarounds for longer periods of time
and severe current mission facility deficiencies to remain uncorrected.
parking ramp modernization
Question. The Army National Guard estimates that 51 percent of
their parking ramps are inadequate in size or condition. Contributing
factors to the untimely deterioration of these ramps include a
modernized fleet, aging asphalt, and deferred ramp maintenance. Has the
Air National Guard accomplished any studies to determine if similar
circumstances exist at their facilities?
Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) performs a pavement condition
survey for each ANG base every five years. These surveys identify those
pavements that do not meet desired operational parameters and
standards. The surveys also include recommendations on the necessary
maintenance and repair work. A review of the 40 most recent surveys
indicates that 75 percent of the pavements are adequate and only
require maintenance efforts to remain operational. The other 25 percent
require some type of repair work. In the last three years, the ANG
executed Real Property Maintenance projects for airfield pavements as
follows:
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of
Fiscal year projects Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.............................................. 9 $2.1
1996.............................................. 17 10.6
1997.............................................. 13 8.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the ANG has identified $23.7 million of airfield
pavement requirements to be accomplished. Within this figure are 18
projects from local airport authorities for which the ANG cost share
totals $13 million. These projects are for joint use pavements at civil
airfields.
nato infrastructure funding
Question. The military construction budget, $8.4 billion, is 16
percent smaller than what was appropriated in fiscal year 1997 ($10
billion). Of all the account requests, I note that each reflects an
overall reduction from last year's appropriation, with the exception of
one: NATO Infrastructure account. The request for NATO is greater than
what was requested for all five of our reserve components. Is it wise
to give such assistance to our allies at the expense of our own guard
and reserve forces?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 request of $176.3 million in budget
authority for the NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP), formerly the
NATO Infrastructure Program, is consistent with funds appropriated the
past two fiscal years. The amount appropriated for NSIP in fiscal year
1997 was $172 million and fiscal year 1996 was $198.5 million, of which
$37.5 million was in support of Bosnia. The fiscal year 1998 budget
request provides the U.S. share of funds for the construction, upgrade,
and restoration of operational facilities; and other related programs
and projects the NATO Alliance requires in support of the agreed NATO
Strategic Concepts and Military Strategy. The NATO Security Investment
Program is financed by 16 participating NATO nations on a cost sharing
basis. The U.S. share is approximately 26 percent; therefore, 74
percent of any comparison between the NATO and Guard and Reserve
requests, the NATO request supports the Secretary of Defense's
commitment to the NATO Ministerial and is unrelated to the size of the
request for the Guard and Reserve.
subcommittee recess
Senator Burns. The subcommittee will now stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., Tuesday, March 11, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Stevens, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. WALKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
INSTALLATIONS, LOGISTICS, AND ENVIRONMENT
OPENING STATEMENT OF CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. I call this subcommittee to order this
morning. First of all, let me apologize for being late, I got
to listen to my esteemed friend, Stephen Ambrose, this morning.
So we will put that up as we work our way through
appropriations. It is called ``Undaunted Courage.'' For those
of you who have not read the book, it is Lewis and Clark's
expedition from St. Louis to Senator Murray's home State and
through quite a lot of Montana.
And the Cannon Building is a hell of a long way from here.
Senator Murray. They went all the way through Montana and
Washington State.
Senator Burns. That is right.
This morning we will hear testimony on the military
construction, family housing, base realignment and closure
[BRAC], and Reserve component programs for the Army and the
military construction programs for the Defense agencies. First
we will hear from the Department of the Army. We are pleased to
hear from Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations,
Logistics, and Environment, Mike Walker.
Welcome, Mike, this morning. We are looking forward to
hearing your testimony. It is great to see everybody here
showing a little bit of flexibility and the awareness of our
mission that we have in front of us, and the ability to work
together. I appreciate that very much, especially with our
ranking member, on what our mission is, defining that mission,
and trying to get there the best way that we possibly can,
serving our soldiers and our sailors that protect this country.
The Army's emphasis on replacing and renovating barracks is
critical to meeting the long-term recruiting and retention
goals for the Army and ensuring that our service members live
in housing that is comparable to those of civilian peers.
In 1998 the Army is recommending $45 million for Army
National Guard military construction projects. This is a step
in the right direction, and you are to be congratulated for
your leadership in this area. Much remains to be done, however.
Last year Congress added $134 million for the Army Guard and
Army Reserve military construction projects. We feel with the
tendency moving from the active Army into the Reserves and
Guard that we have an obligation to those people as well.
However, we do appreciate your efforts and look forward to
ensure that the Reserve components, their critical elements,
are met.
Secretary Walker, I would ask you to keep your statement
short. We are going to kind of hold down here for a little give
and take this morning.
Now I would like any opening statement that the ranking
member, Senator Murray has from the great State of Washington.
Thank you this morning, and again my apologies for being a bit
late.
STATEMENT OF PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
arranging for this hearing on our Army and Defense-related
agencies military construction, BRAC, and housing program.
The programs the subcommittee oversees are crucial,
focusing as they do on the quality of life of our uniformed
personnel here and abroad, and on the vital infrastructure that
allows our forces to operate with assurance as the world's sole
superpower. These programs allow us in the long run to defend
our interests and those of our allies and friends across an
increasingly confusing and complicated world scene.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, your subcommittee was able to mark
up and report its bill out, get it through the Senate and
conference and to the President's desk very early in the
process. And even though the committee added some $617 million
to the request last year, the President wisely signed it. It
was overwhelmingly supported in the Senate, much of that due to
your excellent work in putting it together. I hope that we can
repeat that performance this year.
Mr. Chairman, judging from the President's request, it
looks like we are being invited to rewrite much of the budget
as submitted. The request for our Guard and Reserve program is,
as in the past several years, largely inadequate, and perhaps
deliberately so. For the Army Guard and Reserve, we
appropriated a total of $135.6 million last year. The request
for fiscal year 1998 is for $84.5 million, a reduction in the
Guard account of some 42 percent, and in the Reserve account of
30 percent.
These are steep reductions. Perhaps the administration
expects us, as in the past, to increase the budget for these
accounts, as this committee did last year. We admonished the
administration last year not to repeat the budget history of
underfunding the Guard and Reserves, anticipating a huge plus
up by the committee, but it seems to have done just that.
The overall request for the Guard and Reserves is two-
thirds less than the amount we appropriated for fiscal year
1997. In order just to match last year's amount, we would have
to add about $50 million to the budget for the Army Guard and
Reserve.
Second, Mr. Chairman, the Army's budget for housing
construction has been reduced by some 53 percent from last
year's appropriated amount. This is the heart of quality of
life, and I am not certain that we can leave it at the
requested level. I know that the Department is attempting to
put into place a new public-private housing initiative, the
Department of Defense family housing improvement fund, which
allows the private sector to participate in our housing
programs. I fully support that initiative and indeed one of the
first of two of these programs has just been announced at a
naval base at Everett, WA.
But this program is in its infancy and I am not certain of
any justification for the substantial reduction in the budget
for family housing.
Third, Mr. Chairman, I note that press reports yesterday
indicated that very substantial cuts were being discussed in
the context of the ``Quadrennial Defense Review'' in both Army
and Army National Guard, and that additional base closings may
be needed to get our infrastructure costs down. We need to
understand how these proposals will affect the President's
budget request, if at all.
Having said this, Mr. Chairman, I warmly greet Mr. Robert
Walker, Assistant Secretary of the Army, as well as the
representatives of the Defense-wide agencies, representing
special operations, health services, logistics, and the finance
and accounting service. Each has been most helpful to this
committee in the past, and I know they are concerned about the
budget problems I have just cited, and I know that whatever can
be done to correct them, each will do so.
So I welcome all of the gentlemen back before us and I look
forward to their testimony.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Murray. Senator Stevens
has joined us from Alaska. Do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It is
nice to see you, Secretary Walker. I have to go to the floor
rather quickly, so I will not stay to ask questions and I will
ask the chairman to put them in the record. They are addressed
to you and Mr. Baillie.
I do want to make a statement, though, concerning the Army
hospital at Fairbanks. That is a 74-bed hospital. It was built
in 1950. It is ready now to be designed; a replacement hospital
must be designed. We put up $10 million last year to start
planning.
The plan is to get a smaller hospital of approximately 50
beds, and to solve one of the most challenging programs for the
Army as far as health delivery systems are concerned.
We seek now to see if we can get an agreement between the
community hospital, the Indian Health Service hospital, and
this new Army hospital so that the trauma cases can go on base,
the OB cases go to the community hospital, and the Indian
Health Service hospital becomes the out-patient hospital.
We would have, for the first time, a real cooperative base
in a rural area, showing what could be done in a new way to
share the responsibility so that there will not be duplicated
technology in each one of those three hospitals, but with the
Army specializing in trauma, your people would have the best
training in the world in terms of trauma activity during
peacetime, and they will have the best hospital for OB and
general family care. The base is almost right in town.
I think this is really a great opportunity to move forward,
but I do not know that the timeline is going to be sufficient.
If we do not get that other hospital on base, in place, the old
hospital cannot do this, and the community will have to move
forward and build another hospital.
So we want to get this other hospital going and get it so
the community knows what the timeline is so they will not
proceed to add additional space and so the Indian Health
Service hospital will not have to add additional space.
I would urge you to take a look at it, Mike, because I
think it is one of the finest plans I have seen so far, and it
is the kind of thing we ought to do on a cost-effective basis
with military funds. I look forward to your answer.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
prepared statement of senator reid
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Stevens. I know you are
pretty busy on the floor with the supplemental. I have an
opening statement from Senator Reid that I would like to put in
the record at this point.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to start off by thanking the
Chairman for calling this hearing. I look forward to the testimony of
our distinguished panel, especially the testimony of Mr. Walker, and
hope that we can effectively address some of the quality of life issues
which are so important in today's environment of shrinking budgets.
This years budget has significant reductions in military
construction spending for fiscal year 1998. The President's budget
proposal calls for a requested budget authority of $8.4 billion. This
is down 8 percent from the fiscal year 1997 request and is 16 percent
less than the $10 billion approved by Congress last year. The fiscal
year 1998 request for the Army National Guard is $45 million as
compared to a fiscal year 1997 appropriation amount of $78 million, a
reduction of more than 40 percent.
I was surprised at Secretary Cohen's comments on Tuesday in which
he advocated two more rounds of BRAC, the first of which would take
place as early as 1999. The actual savings that would occur as a result
of more base closures, especially in the near term, is questionable. We
know that savings from previous BRAC's have not proven to be as
substantial as originally anticipated.
I question the idea of rushing into another round of BRAC until we
are able to attain a complete and thorough understanding of the
military implications of additional base closures. To my knowledge,
there has been no study which analyzes the impact of previous base
closures. Until we have a firm understanding of the impact previous
base closures have had on the readiness posture of our military, the
decision to further reduce our infrastructure should be delayed.
We cannot look to the MilCon budget and to another BRAC in order to
pay the bill for the military's weapons modernization program. Over the
years, this subcommittee has worked very hard to ensure adequate
funding for our defense infrastructure. This established infrastructure
is important and helps our military attract, sustain, and retain
quality personnel. Consequently, I am very hesitant to sacrifice our
infrastructure in order to fund military's modernization efforts.
The programs this subcommittee oversees are crucial to our military
and directly affect our uniformed service members and their families.
The Military Construction Appropriations bill is the sole source of
funds for our quality of life programs. At many bases and installations
throughout the United States, family housing, child care centers, and
gymnasium facilities are cited as being inadequate to meet the needs of
the installation. We must remain committed to improving the quality of
life for our soldiers and their families--it has a conclusive and
profound impact upon our military's readiness.
I want to thank our panel members for their efforts in preparing
for this hearing. I know the work that goes into preparing for a
hearing and so often the appreciation is never expressed. Again, I
appreciate your hard work and look forward to continuing this
relationship in the coming months as we progress through the
appropriation process.
I also look forward to working with the other members of this
committee in much the same fashion as we worked so successfully
together in the past. I am sure that we can be as efficient this year
as we were last. I am hopeful that we will be able to markup and report
the Military Construction Appropriation bill out of committee, and get
it to the President's desk early in the legislative year.
Statement of Robert M. Walker
Senator Burns. Mr. Walker, we are ready for your statement.
Mr. Walker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before the committee again. You know,
after 3 years of being on this side of the table, I still feel
awkward. I still feel like I ought to be sitting up there.
Senator Burns. It is just a matter of moving that chair,
you know. [Laughter.]
Mr. Walker. Sometimes I would love to ask myself some
questions.
I do look forward to reading Steve Ambrose's new book. I
have not read it yet. But I must say when you set it up there,
``Undaunted Courage,'' I was wondering what questions you had
in mind for me.
Mr. Chairman, I am accompanied this morning by Mr. Paul
Johnson, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations and Housing, Brig. Gen. Evan Gaddis, who is the
Acting Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management,
Brig. Gen. William Bilo, who is Deputy Director of the Army
National Guard, and Brig. Gen. James Helmly, who is the Deputy
Chief of the Army Reserve.
Mr. Chairman, we very much appreciate the opportunity to
appear before the committee to discuss the Army's military
construction and family housing request for fiscal year 1998.
I think we all agree that we do have the best Army in the
world. Our challenge is to keep it that way. While we may have
the best Army in the world today, I think we all know that that
status is not preordained. The fact is that in a good economy
it is hard to compete with the civilian job market.
Studies are showing that the propensity of young people to
join the Armed Forces is declining. This year, for instance, in
the Army we need to recruit almost 90,000 young men and women.
When I was sworn in 3 years ago, we were only recruiting
65,0000. And then, once we recruit soldiers, they gain skills
and training which are valuable in the civilian job market.
So, Mr. Chairman, there is no guarantee that we will always
be able to attract and retain the kind of men and women we need
to protect this Nation's security. That is why the work of this
subcommittee is so very important.
Mr. Chairman, it is very imperative that we continue to
provide a good quality of life for our soldiers and their
families. If ever our soldiers perceive or believe that we have
lost our focus on quality of life, then the American Army will
be in danger of losing its edge.
The request before you, Mr. Chairman, represents many
months of discussion and debate within the Department of the
Army. The guidance we received from then Secretary of Defense
Bill Perry was that we continue to emphasize military readiness
as the first priority, and that we provide the maximum pay
raises allowed by law.
Now, once we did that, all the other requirements had to
compete for the remaining resources. But, even so, Mr.
Chairman, the request before the subcommittee does represent
some progress. In the fiscal year 1998 request we were able to
increase the military construction and family housing accounts
by over $300 million over the amount we had originally planned
for the fiscal year 1998 budget year.
As a result, the request before you, for the first time in
many years, provides more funding for Active Army military
construction than was approved by the Congress in the previous
fiscal year. As a result of this increase, we were able to
fully fund our highest facility priorities, which are barracks
and strategic mobility.
Mr. Chairman, since I have been an Assistant Secretary for
the last 3 years, I have found that today's soldiers are very
realistic. They know that we cannot do everything right now.
They understand that there are financial limits and budgetary
pressures and limitations.
But what they do want to know is that we have a plan to
make things better, and that we are working to execute that
plan. Mr. Chairman, we have developed a plan to replace or
renovate single soldier barracks in the United States by the
year 2008, and overseas by the year 2012. The previous plan
called for completing the job by 2020. That was just too long.
So, Mr. Chairman, we deeply appreciate this committee's
support for this effort, and we ask your assistance in helping
to keep this barracks plan on track in the future.
We have seen what just a little barracks money can do. When
the 1st Armored Division deployed from Germany to Bosnia in
late 1995, they left behind some of the worst barracks in the
Army's inventory. And, with the help of Congress, we were able
to begin the rather long process of improving barracks at
Baumholder and other areas.
So when the soldiers redeployed back to Baumholder and back
to Germany, they came back and they saw some improvements. They
saw that there was a commitment there. They saw that their
country cared for them. And today I must tell you that that
division, while it is one of the most deployed divisions and
busiest divisions in the Army, it also has one of the highest
reenlistment rates. And one of the reasons reenlistments are so
high is because we demonstrated a commitment to soldiers'
quality of life.
I was just at Baumholder a few days ago, and I heard that
repeated by soldiers over and over. So quality of life does
make a difference to the readiness of the Army.
Now, Mr. Chairman, with regard to family housing, as
Senator Murray mentioned, the request before you does provide
for plans to replace or revitalize more than 1,000 units of
family housing. But, as you point out, we have almost 120,000
units of family housing. We cannot ask America's soldiers to
wait more than one century while we replace or renovate
substandard housing.
The unfortunate reality is that the traditional methods of
providing family housing will never be enough for us to meet
all of the family housing requirements. So we are looking at
ways of leveraging the private sector to help us to construct,
renovate, operate and maintain family housing.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank this subcommittee for
approving the seed money to implement the legislation that
permits us to test a wide range of housing privatization
concepts.
I was recently at Fort Carson to review the Army's first
and the Department of Defense's most complex housing
privatization effort, and during fiscal years 1998 and 1999 we
hope to proceed with an additional 15 projects. So, Mr.
Chairman, we ask for the committee's continued support for our
housing privatization initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, briefly with regard to our base closure
program, I am pleased to tell you that during the current
fiscal year, fiscal year 1997, we will begin to save more money
from base closures than we are spending, and by the end of
fiscal year 2001 we will be saving $1 billion annually from
base closures and realignments, even after we pay the large
cost of environmental cleanup. So we ask for the committee's
continued support for our request to fund the base closure
program.
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude and take your questions, I
would like to highlight one particular request before the
subcommittee, and that is for our prepositioning program in the
Persian Gulf region. Recently I visited our new prepositioning
afloat maintenance facility in Charleston, SC. And during my
visit the Army was loading the first LMSR--that is the acronym
for the six-football field-size cargo ship that has joined our
war reserve afloat fleet at Diego Garcia.
And while I was walking around observing loading
operations, I asked a young PFC from Ohio what it all meant to
him. And he said, without thinking, ``So Saddam Hussein will
not make the same mistake again.'' I think that PFC was right
on the money. During Desert Shield it took us 20 days before we
had even the first M-1 tank in the desert. Last fall, when the
President deployed elements of the 1st Cav to Kuwait, we had a
brigade of soldiers beginning to fall in on dozens of tanks in
96 hours.
That is deterrence, Mr. Chairman. But our existing
prepositioning in the region is not enough for long-term
deterrence or enough to assure a strong enough, swift enough
defense, should Saddam or some other enemy of freedom decide to
attack again.
A future enemy, I think we all know, is not going to do
what Saddam did the last time. He just sat there and he allowed
us to build up an offensive capability for 6 months. That will
never happen again. So we need the additional prepositioning
capability. Mr. Chairman, the last phase of our prepositioning
initiative in Qatar is included in this request, and we
respectfully ask for your support.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have taken the last few minutes to
talk about some of the initiatives that are included in the
budget. Let me talk about some of those initiatives that you
both had mentioned that are not included.
As we went through the programming process for this budget,
we, of course, found that every requirement could not make it
to the top, given the top line that we had. And because of the
necessity to prioritize and to make tradeoffs in order to
ensure adequate funding for readiness and personnel, we were
simply unable to provide increases for operational facilities
or for Guard and Reserve Milcon.
And that, quite frankly, is our challenge for the future.
The longer it takes us to revitalize infrastructure, the more
it is going to cost in the long run. So we know that we must
find ways to increase our investment in these areas, and the
requirement to increase our investment in these Milcon areas is
also coming at a time that we need to increase our investment
in science and technology and equipment modernization.
So when we see that challenge before us, and when we factor
in a balanced Federal budget, we know that the budget for
Milcon is not going to grow appreciably. So that means that we
are going to have to continue to do some things better, to
become more efficient, to become more innovative, to adopt
better business practices.
And as we found out already, doing that is not very easy.
But we are going to have to take that approach if we are going
to find the resources within our top line to make the facility
investments that are needed for a modern Army.
prepared statement
So, Mr. Chairman, we are going to need the help and support
and the suggestions of the subcommittee, and we look forward to
our continued partnership together on behalf of the men and
women who are the American Army.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert M. Walker
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
appear before you to discuss the Active Army and Reserve Components'
military construction request for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. This
request will provide new and renovated facilities needed to improve
Army readiness, quality of life and efficiency. These matters are of
considerable importance to Americas Army, as well as this committee,
and we appreciate the opportunity to report to you on them.
Our statement is in four parts:
Part I--Military Construction, Army Family Housing, Army Homeowners
Assistance Fund, Defense
Part II--Military Construction, Army National Guard
Part III--Military Construction, Army Reserve
Part IV--Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).
part i--military construction, army family housing, army homeowners
assistance fund, defense
First, I am pleased to present the Active Army's portion of the
Military Construction budget request for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
This budget provides construction and family housing resources
essential to support the Army's role in our National Military Strategy.
The program presented requests fiscal year 1998 appropriations for
Military Construction, Army (MCA) of $595,277,000, and $1,291,937,000
for Army Family Housing (AFH). No additional budget authority for the
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense, is required in fiscal year 1998. A
companion request for authorization in fiscal year 1998 includes
$555,277,000 for MCA and $1,291,937,000 for AFH. For fiscal year 1999,
the program requests appropriations of $696,969,000 in MCA,
$1,255,908,000 for AFH, and $40,229,000 for Homeowners Assistance Fund,
Defense. The fiscal year 1999 companion authorization request is
$780,569,000 for MCA, $1,255,908,000 for AFH and $40,229,000 for
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense.
Now, let's discuss America's Army. Today, ``America's Army'' is a
total force comprised of Active Duty, Reserve, National Guard, civilian
employees, and family members serving the Nation both at home and
abroad. It is the world's premier land combat force, trained and ready
to answer the Nation's call. We are the Nation's full-spectrum force
for the 21st Century.
America's Army is important to our national security. Although
smaller now than at any time since before World War II, we are being
called on for a increasing number of diverse missions around the world.
Whether conducting operations in support of national security policy,
participating in joint or combined training exercises, providing
support to civil authorities during natural disasters or stationed
overseas, American soldiers are the Nation's standard bearers
throughout the world. However, because we must continue to perform more
demanding, more diverse and more soldier intensive missions, our
operational deployments have increased. The impact of this increased
mission is immense on both our soldiers and their families. We have a
duty to provide the best possible facilities and improved quality of
life that is necessary to retain these dedicated soldiers and their
families.
In order to continue to undertake our diverse missions, it is
imperative that we achieve a predictable environment in the Army. To
successfully meet these increasing operational commitments while
simultaneously maintaining readiness, we require stability--in force
structure, quality of life, installations and funding available to
carry out our missions.
An imperative to maintaining a trained and ready Army is retention
of our high quality people. They are the defining characteristic of a
quality force and are the overarching nucleus of our Army. Our numerous
and diverse operations require soldiers who are skilled, well trained
and well led. They must be capable of adapting to complex, dangerous
and ever-changing situations. High caliber quality of life programs are
essential to ensuring that the Army continues to retain the soldiers
necessary to maintain America's Army. We must continue to focus on
issues important to these men and women who so bravely serve the
nation. Programs like the Whole Barracks Renewal, Whole Neighborhood
Revitalization, Army Family Action Plan and Army Communities of
Excellence remain key in our focus.
Now, I would like to discuss our facilities strategy as it affects
the Army and as we move toward the 21st Century.
facilities strategy
The Army's facilities vision is to provide comprehensive, adaptable
power projection platforms with the quality facilities, infrastructure
and services that are integral to the readiness of the force and the
quality of life of our soldiers and their families, while protecting
the environment.
The Army's facilities strategy is threefold. First, because
resources are limited, we must focus our investment on what is most
important. To do this we must identify required facilities,
infrastructure and services and then focus our resources on those to
assure the desired level of readiness. Second, we must divest of all
unneeded real property. Third, we must reduce the total cost required
to support our facilities and related services, including management
and maintenance of our real property inventory.
As part of our effort to better focus our investment, we have
developed a decision support tool, the Installation Status Report (ISR)
Part One (Infrastructure), which is fully fielded, Army-wide,
worldwide, to help formulate and monitor our facilities strategy. We
are using it for the first time this year to assess the status of our
facilities' condition. This identifies critical areas for consideration
of resource allocation. Also, it assists in condition assessment of our
facilities essential to the installation's mission, and quality of
life.
We are reducing our requirement by rigorously eliminating excess
facilities. Between our current facilities reduction program and base
realignment and closure, we will eliminate over 200,000,000 square feet
in the United States by 2003. We continue to demolish one square foot
for every square foot constructed and will begin reducing our leasing
costs significantly in fiscal year 1997. By 2003, with our overseas
reductions included, the Army will have eliminated over 400,000,000
square feet from its fiscal year 1990 peak of 1,157,700,000 square
feet.
We are looking for innovative ways to reduce the cost of our
facilities, including privatization or outsourcing of certain
functions. It is proving an effective solution for installation
utilities systems. Our goal is to privatize at least 75 percent of all
Army utilities by 2003. Privatization is also being considered to
provide better housing for soldiers and their families, while reducing
the Army's inventory. Partnering with civilian communities around an
installation is also a viable alternative to the Army maintaining some
facilities.
At this time, I will discuss several of the highlights of the
budget.
military construction, army (mca)
Within our military construction request, we focus on three major
categories of projects: mission facilities, quality of life projects,
and support programs such as infrastructure and environmental projects.
mission facilities
In fiscal year 1998, there are six mission facility projects
totaling $90,000,000. In fiscal year 1999, there are eight projects for
a total of $103,000,000. Essential mission facilities include several
initiatives such as the Army Strategic Mobility Program (ASMP) and
Close Combat Tactical Training (CCTT) facilities.
Army Strategic Mobility Program.--Fiscal years 1998 and 1999
continue the upgrade of the strategic mobility infrastructure we
started several years ago. In fiscal year 1998, we have included
$23,000,000 to complete the two-phased program at Concord Naval Weapons
Station, started in fiscal year 1997. This project upgrades the
ammunition pier to increase the throughput of ammunition on the west
coast to a level equal to that available on the east coast. Also in
CONUS, we have included an upgrade to the infrastructure supporting the
Army Strategic Maintenance Complex at Charleston Naval Weapons Station,
$7,700,000, and construction of a container loading and shipping
facility at Crane Army Ammunition Activity, $7,700,000.
Fiscal year 1998 also completes the multi-phased Strategic Logistic
Initiative (SLI), that began in fiscal year 1996. This initiative
constructs facilities in Southwest Asia for the pre-positioning of
equipment and materiel needed to speed the deployment of forces during
a contingency in that region. The budget requests the final phase of
the program, $37,000,000. This project will complete facilities and
infrastructure required to preposition equipment, materiel, and
supplies for a second armored heavy brigade, along with unit equipment
of a division base.
Fiscal year 1999 includes upgrades to facilities for air deployment
at Fort Bragg, $31,000,000, and rail loading at Fort Hood, $33,000,000.
Also included are container and MILVAN loading and shipping facilities
for McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, $10,400,000; Tooele Army Depot,
$5,000,000; Crane Army Ammunition Activity, $7,100,000; Anniston Army
Depot, $3,900,000, and Bluegrass Depot Activity, $5,300,000.
Close combat tactical trainers.--CCTT facilities leverage
technology to enhance training and maintain readiness through a group
of fully interactive, networked emulators and command, control and
communications work stations. When the first CCTT becomes operational
in 1997, it will reduce reliance on field exercises as the single
method for combined arms training and provide a long term, cost
effective option to field exercises. The budget request includes two
trainers in fiscal year 1998 at Fort Carson and Fort Riley,
$14,600,000, and one in fiscal year 1999 at Fort Lewis, $7,300,000.
quality of life projects
The Army remains committed to improving the quality of life of our
soldiers and their families, since it has a dominant impact on the
Army's readiness. Over 56 percent of the fiscal year 1998 request and
over 44 percent of the fiscal year 1999 request is for projects in this
category. This substantial effort will reduce the amount of time to
improve the living conditions of our single soldiers. This is our top
MCA priority. In CONUS, we will provide upgraded or new living
facilities to our single personnel by the year 2008, while overseas, we
will complete the renewal by 2012. The largest change in funding from
previous years' requests is in the area of overseas barracks. The Army
has done little construction in Korea or Europe since the 1980's. Now
that both theaters are stabilizing after years of troop reductions, we
revised our investment strategies for overseas. This request addresses
long standing shortfalls in both Korea and Europe. Our programs reflect
significant funding levels for quality of life programs in line with
the Department of Defense's emphasis in this area.
Whole barracks renewal initiative.--The Army's Whole Barracks
Renewal program provides funding for new construction and modernization
projects. It represents our efforts to provide our single soldiers with
a home, not just a place to live. We will provide more space, more
privacy and a quality of life for our single soldiers that is
comparable to living off the installation or that of our married
soldiers. The Whole Barracks Renewal program includes personal privacy,
larger rooms, closets, upgraded day rooms, centrally procured
furnishings, additional parking, landscaping and administrative offices
separated from the barracks. In fiscal year 1998, we are planning
eighteen barracks projects at a cost of $337,800,000. This includes
five projects in Korea, $76,100,000, and four projects in Europe,
$43,000,000, to address the deplorable living conditions there. Our
budget also funds the completion of the Fort Knox barracks renewal
complex, $22,000,000, that was authorized in fiscal year 1997. Fiscal
year 1999 adds another eleven projects totaling $312,500,000 for CONUS
and Korea.
support programs
Included in this area are those projects which provide vital
support to installations and balance to the military construction
program. We have requested six projects in fiscal year 1998 for
$98,000,000. The request includes two environmental projects, one at
Yakima Training Center, $2,000,000, to comply with an environmental
remediation plan, and one to construct a replacement facility for a
central washrack, $5,400,000, at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia. The fiscal
year 1998 budget also requests the appropriation of $18,000,000 to fund
the second phase of the National Range Control Center project at White
Sands Missile Range that was authorized by Congress in fiscal year
1997. Funding to construct a replacement facility for the disciplinary
barracks at Fort Leavenworth, $63,000,000 is included in the fiscal
year 1998 request. Additional projects at Charlottesville, Virginia,
for design of the National Ground Intelligence Center and a classified
location are included for $9,600,000.
In fiscal year 1999, there are 18 projects totaling $206,950,000 in
this budget area. Projects include Child Development facilities for
Germany and Belgium, $11,850,000; a power plant and two unaccompanied
housing projects for Kwajalein Atoll, $77,500,000; four projects at
Yakima Training Center--a central fuel facility, $3,950,000, a central
washrack expansion, $4,650,000, an ammunition supply point expansion,
$5,500,000, and a road upgrade project to comply with the environmental
mitigation plan, $2,000,000--to support stationing and training of the
heavy brigade at Fort Lewis, Washington. Included in this category in
fiscal year 1999 is funding for the first phase of the revitalization
of the cadet physical development center at U.S. Military Academy, West
Point, $4,400,000. Two projects are requested for Fort Irwin. The first
is a maintenance hardstand for $11,000,000. The second project is for
the construction of a heliport at Barstow-Daggett for the National
Training Center. The total cost of this project is $27,000,000;
however, all but $7,000,000 will be funded from prior year
appropriations. Construction of the National Ground Intelligence Center
at Charlottesville, Virginia, $46,200,000, is in fiscal year 1999.
There are five other projects at Fort Jackson, Fort Leonard Wood, Fort
Sill, Fort Detrick and Rock Island Arsenal for infra-structure and
revitalization in the United States totaling $32,900,000. Now, let me
talk about one of the most important projects in this category.
United States Army disciplinary barracks.--The fiscal year 1998
request includes $63,000,000 for a replacement facility for the U.S.
Army Disciplinary Barracks (USDB) at Fort Leavenworth. This facility is
required for the Army to perform its executive agent role to confine
military inmates from all services. Although there is a memorandum of
agreement to transfer some inmates that have been discharged from the
military to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP), over half of the
current USDB inmates are awaiting appeals or have not been discharged
and are not eligible for transfer. Additional transfers would also
exacerbate the overcrowding already experienced in FBOP facilities. The
current facility was constructed in the early 1900's and is
deteriorated, showing evidence of structural cracking and exposed
reinforcement steel, which if not corrected may present a life safety
problem. The antiquated configuration and outdated facilities are
expensive to maintain and inefficient to guard and process inmates.
budget request analysis
The fiscal year 1998 MCA budget includes a request for
appropriations of $595,277,000, along with a companion request for
authorization for $555,277,000. The authorization request is lower,
since we are using authority from fiscal year 1997 to fund the second
phase of the Range Control Center at White Sands Missile Range,
$18,000,000, and the remainder of the Whole Barracks Renewal Complex at
Fort Knox, $22,000,000. The fiscal year 1999 MCA budget request
includes a request for appropriations of $696,969,000, along with a
companion request for authorization of $780,569,000. The authorization
request includes full authority, $88,000,000, for the U.S. Military
Academy project to replace the Cadet Physical Development Center;
however, only $4,400,000 in appropriations is required for the first
phase of this project. The request for appropriations for fiscal years
1998 and 1999, by investment focus, is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1--INVESTMENT FOCUS APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Appropriations Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998:
Whole Barracks Renewal.................. $337,800,000 56.7
Strategic Mobility...................... 75,400,000 12.7
Environmental........................... 7,400,000 1.2
Critical Mission........................ 105,200,000 17.7
Planning and Design/Minor Construction.. 69,477,000 11.7
---------------------------
Total................................. 595,277,000 100.0
===========================
Fiscal year 1999:
Whole Barracks Renewal.................. 312,500,000 44.8
Strategic Mobility...................... 95,700,000 13.7
Environmental........................... 2,000,000 0.3
Critical Mission........................ 212,250,000 30.5
Planning and Design/Minor Construction.. 74,519,000 10.7
---------------------------
Total................................. 696,969,000 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2 shows the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 distribution of the
appropriations request among the Army's major commands.
TABLE 2--COMMAND SUMMARY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Command Appropriations total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998:
Inside the United States:
Forces Command...................... $103,100 17.3
Training and Doctrine Command....... 127,000 21.3
U.S. Army, Pacific.................. 44,000 7.4
Army Materiel Command............... 33,400 5.6
Medical Command..................... 16,000 2.7
Military District of Washington..... 13,600 2.3
Military Traffic Management Command. 23,000 3.9
Intelligence and Security Command... 3,100 0.5
Assistant Chief of Staff
Installation Management............ 6,500 1.1
---------------------------
Total............................. 369,700 62.1
===========================
Outside the United States:
Eighth, United States Army.......... 76,100 12.8
United States Army Central Command.. 37,000 6.2
United States Army, Europe.......... 43,000 7.2
---------------------------
Total............................. 156,100 26.2
===========================
Total Major Construction.......... 525,800 88.3
===========================
Worldwide:
Planning and Design................. 63,477 10.7
Minor Construction.................. 6,000 1.0
---------------------------
Total............................. 69,477 11.2
===========================
Total appropriations requested.... 595,277 100.0
===========================
Fiscal year 1999:
Inside the United States:
Forces Command...................... 211,600 30.4
Training and Doctrine Command....... 94,300 13.5
U.S. Army, Pacific.................. 49,000 7.0
Army Materiel Command............... 37,000 5.3
Medical Command..................... 27,100 3.9
Intelligence and Security Command... 46,200 6.6
United States Military Academy...... 4,400 0.6
---------------------------
Total............................. 469,600 66.5
===========================
Outside the United States:
United States Army, Europe.......... 11,850 1.7
Eighth, United States Army.......... 63,500 9.1
United States Army Strategic Defense
Command............................ 77,500 11.1
---------------------------
Total............................. 152,850 21.9
===========================
Total Major Construction.......... 622,450 89.3
===========================
Worldwide:
Planning and Design................. 64,519 9.3
Minor Construction.................. 10,000 1.4
---------------------------
Total............................. 74,519 10.7
===========================
Total appropriations requested.... 696,969 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
army family housing
No single quality of life component matches the importance of
proper housing for Army soldiers and their families. The family housing
program provides a major incentive necessary for attracting and
retaining dedicated individuals to serve in the Army. Yet, adequate
housing continues to be the number one soldier concern when they are
asked about their quality of life. Out-of-pocket expenses for soldiers
living off post in the U.S. are typically 20 to 22 percent above their
housing allowances. Thus, the Army's continuing challenge is
maintaining and revitalizing our on-post housing, and finding
affordable, quality off-post housing for our soldiers and families.
In an effort to manage our installation family housing program in a
more businesslike manner, the Army implemented the Business Occupancy
Program in fiscal year 1996. Under this program, family housing
operating funds are allocated to our installations on the basis of
housing units occupied rather than the total number of units in the
inventory. This provides an incentive to more effectively and
efficiently manage occupancy and assets, since installation funding is
now directly related to the number of units occupied, vice the total
inventory. We saw a two percent increase in occupancy rates using the
Business Occupancy Program during fiscal year 1996.
Additionally, the 1996 Defense Authorization Act provided new
authorities under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative,
commonly referred to in the Army as the Capital Venture Initiative
(CVI). Fifteen housing projects are under development using these
authorities, which will privatize part of our housing inventory. We are
working closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense on efforts
to further privatize the acquisition, revitalization and management of
housing assets.
Our fiscal year 1998 budget is $1,291,937,000 and includes
$143,000,000 for a modest replacement construction program for units no
longer economical to revitalize; a modest housing revitalization
program for our aging housing inventory; and for planning and design of
future construction projects. Funding for the annual costs of
operating, maintaining, and leasing housing units for military families
in fiscal year 1998 is $1,148,937,000.
Our fiscal year 1999 budget is $1,255,908,000 and includes
$137,900,000 for a modest replacement construction program for units no
longer economical to revitalize; a modest housing revitalization
program for our aging housing inventory; and for planning and design of
future construction projects. Funding for the annual costs of
operating, maintaining, and leasing housing units for military families
in fiscal year 1999 is $1,118,008,000. Table 3 summarizes each of the
categories of the Army Family Housing program.
TABLE 3--ARMY FAMILY HOUSING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999
Facility category -------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Percent Appropriations Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Construction.............................................. $88,650 7 $81,000 6
Post Acquisition Construction................................. 44,800 3 49,650 4
Planning and Design........................................... 9,550 1 7,250 1
Operations.................................................... 180,756 14 183,267 15
Utilities..................................................... 265,732 21 269,582 21
Maintenance................................................... 468,393 36 423,698 34
Leasing....................................................... 234,053 18 241,458 19
Debt.......................................................... 3 <1 3 <1
-------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 1,291,937 ....... 1,255,908 .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whole neighborhood revitalization
This two year request continues the initiative the Congress first
approved in fiscal year 1992 to revitalize both the housing unit and
the entire living environment of the military family. The whole
neighborhood revitalization program provides for systematically
upgrading and repairing the existing housing inventory, while
concurrently improving neighborhood amenities. The projects recommended
for this program are based on life-cycle economic analyses and will
provide units which meet community standards. The combination of
replacement and post-acquisition construction in fiscal year 1998
provides for an annual worldwide investment that is on a 62 year
replacement cycle, versus an Army goal of 35 year replacement cycle.
The fiscal year 1999 program represents a 69 year replacement cycle.
New construction.--The fiscal year 1998 new construction program
provides whole neighborhood revitalization projects for replacing 583
units at five locations, Fort Bragg, Fort Hood, Fort Bliss, Fort Meade
and Schofield Barracks, where it is more economical to replace than
renovate current housing. The fiscal year 1998 program also includes a
project for $2,300,000 to either purchase or construct eight housing
units in Miami, Florida, for senior key and essential officials of the
Headquarters, U.S. Southern Command. Further, the fiscal year 1999
program replaces 536 units at four locations, Fort Bragg, Fort Hood,
Redstone Arsenal and Schofield Barracks. This replacement construction,
which includes the supporting infrastructure, ensures that adequate
housing is available for our soldiers and their families without adding
to the current inventory. At each location, the housing being replaced
will be demolished. Each project is supported with a housing survey
showing that adequate and affordable units are not available in the
surrounding community.
Post acquisition construction.--The Post Acquisition Construction
program is an integral part of our housing revitalization program. In
fiscal year 1998, we are requesting funds for improvements to 455 units
at three locations in the U.S. and three locations in Europe. Included
in this request is a project to revitalize 120 units at Fort Benning
for $15,000,000, of which $2,000,000 will be funded from fiscal year
1996 appropriations. The fiscal year 1999 program improves 774 units at
five U.S. locations and two European locations. Also included within
the scope of each of these projects are efforts to improve supporting
infrastructure, energy efficiency and eliminate environmental hazards.
operations and maintenance
The operations, utilities and maintenance programs comprise the
majority of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 budget requests. This budget
provides for the Army's annual expenditures for maintenance and repair,
municipal type services, furnishings and utilities. The requested
amounts of $914,881,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $876,547,000 for
fiscal year 1999 are approximately 71 percent of the family housing
request.
leasing
The leasing program provides another way of adequately housing our
military families. Our fiscal year 1998 request is $234,053,000. We are
requesting $241,458,000 in fiscal year 1999. Our request will fund
existing Section 2835 project requirements, temporary domestic leases
in the United States and nearly 11,300 units overseas. The fiscal year
1998 request is $6,538,000 more than appropriated in fiscal year 1997.
This increase reflects an increase in the number of leased units
overseas and approximately 60 new housing units in the Miami, Florida,
area requested by the Commander-in-Chief of the Southern Command for
junior enlisted families assigned to Headquarters, U.S. Southern
Command.
Our experience shows that the foreign leasing program generally
saves the Army money. In fiscal year 1996, the average overseas housing
allowance was $15,732 per family, while our average lease cost was
$14,566 per unit. Our foreign leasing program increases slightly from
10,800 units in fiscal year 1997 to 11,300 units in fiscal year 1999.
The Army's total leasing program request supports approximately
15,300 units in fiscal year 1998, and 15,400 units in fiscal year 1999,
to satisfy requirements in the United States, Europe, Korea, Panama,
and other locations. These are our high priority locations where
providing flexible family housing solutions to commanders is essential
to improving the quality of life of our soldiers.
real property maintenance
Real Property Maintenance (RPM) is the primary account in
installation base support funding responsible for maintaining the
infrastructure to achieve a successful readiness posture for the Army's
fighting force. Installations are the power projection platforms of
America's Army and must be properly maintained in the present condition
to be ready for the support of current Army missions and any future
deployments. The appropriations for this program are provided as a part
of the Defense Appropriations Bill.
RPM consists of two major functional areas. The Maintenance and
Repair of Real Property account pays to repair and maintain buildings,
structures, roads and grounds, and utilities systems. The Minor
Construction account pays for projects under $1 million which are
intended solely to correct life, health, or safety deficiencies. It
also funds projects under $500,000 per project for the erection,
installation or assembly of a new facility, and for the addition,
expansion, or alteration of an existing facility.
Within the RPM area, we have two programs that I would like to
highlight. The first program is our Barracks Upgrade Program. While 40
percent of our barracks requirement will be revitalized or replaced
through our Whole Barracks Renewal effort using major construction
funding, the larger part of the inventory, 60 percent, can be modified
to the 1+1 standard using RPM resources. In the fiscal year 1997 DOD
Appropriations Act, Congress provided Army $149 million in a new two
year appropriation, Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense (QOLE, D) for
maintenance and repair of facilities key to quality of life. We have
allocated all of these funds to start a long-term initiative to repair
our Volunteer Army era barracks inventory to the 1+1 standard. We call
this our Barracks Upgrade Program (BUP). The Army committed
approximately $150 million per year in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to
this program, to continue the efforts to upgrade our single soldier's
quality of life. This program, when combined with the Whole Barracks
Renewal program, will reduce the amount of time required to improve the
living conditions of our single soldiers to the current DOD standard by
almost one half, so all barracks facilities worldwide are revitalized
or replaced by the year 2012.
The second is our long range strategy to provide reliable and
efficient utility services at our installations. As discussed earlier,
privatization or outsourcing of utilities is the first part of our
strategy. We are maximizing our efforts to partner with the local
communities utility departments and private utility companies to
provide utility services that are more efficient and reliable. We have
already successfully transferred twelve utility systems at ten
installations. Additionally, eight other utility systems are currently
in the process of being transferred. The second part of the strategy is
the utilities modernization program to help upgrade those utility
systems that cannot be privatized, such as central heating plants and
distribution systems. We have requested $60,000,000 for utility
modernization projects in fiscal year 1998. Utility systems at unique
or remote installations are particularly reliant on these modernization
projects. We are also funding energy saving projects which will further
improve our energy efficiency. We have allocated $40,000,000 per year
for this effort.
homeowners assistance fund, defense
The Army is the executive agent for the Homeowners Assistance
Program. This program provides assistance to homeowners by reducing
their losses incident to the disposal of their homes when the military
installations at or near where they are serving or employed are ordered
to be closed or the scope of operations reduced. For fiscal year 1998,
there are no additional requirements for funds. The fiscal year 1999
request is for appropriations of $40,229,000, along with a companion
request for authorization and authorization of appropriations for the
same amount.
The request will provide assistance to personnel at approximately
21 installations that are impacted with either a base closure or a
realignment of personnel, resulting in adverse economic effects on
local communities. The Homeowners Assistance Program is funded not only
from the resources being requested in this budget, but is also
dependent, in large part, on the revenue earned during the fiscal year
from the sale of properties.
summary
Mr. Chairman, this budget is essential to ensure that there is a
balance between all Army programs affecting readiness and the support
of our personnel. Our strategy can only be achieved through balanced
funding, divestiture of excess capacity and improvements in management.
We will continue to work toward maintaining the maximum flexibility for
our installation commanders to use the resources available to them, to
maintain maximum readiness and provide the needed support and
facilities. We will also continue to streamline, consolidate and
establish community partnerships that generate resources for
infrastructure improvements and continuance of services. The fiscal
year 1998 request for appropriations for Military Construction Army and
Army Family Housing is $1,887,214,000. In fiscal year 1999, our request
for Military Construction Army and Army Family Housing is
$1,952,877,000 and $40,229,000 for the Homeowners Assistance Program.
With approval of this request we will continue to: improve our
strategic mobilization posture, provide environmental compliant
facilities; provide additional adequate housing for both our single and
married soldiers and their families; and meet statutory and regulatory
requirements. This request will provide for family housing leasing and
operation and maintenance of the current inventory. Approval of this
request will provide the minimum level of facilities funding within the
total funding available to the Department of the Army in fiscal years
1998 and 1999. Thank you for your continued support for Army facilities
funding.
part ii--military construction, army national guard
Next, I will present the Army National Guard's Military
Construction Program for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
The Guard's fiscal year 1998 request for appropriations of
$45,098,000 includes $35,600,000 for major construction, $2,800,000 for
planning and design and $6,698,000 for unspecified minor construction.
The fiscal year 1999 request of $33,800,000 includes $23,640,000 for
major construction, $3,160,000 for planning and design, and $7,000,000
for unspecified minor construction. The companion request for
authorization and authorization of appropriations is the same as the
appropriation request for both fiscal years.
The Army National Guard is America's community based, dual-use
reserve force, ``A trained and ready citizen-Army,'' and, by statute,
an integral part of the first line defense of the United States. It is
balanced and ready. The National Guard is manned with over 367,000
quality soldiers in 1,823 major units in over 2,700 communities
nationwide.
The National Guard is a capabilities based force providing grass
roots support to America's Army. They have demonstrated combat, combat
support, and combat service support performance from the Pequot War of
1637 through the Gulf War of 1991. Recently, the National Guard has
supported missions in Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and is in Bosnia in
support of Operation Joint Endeavor today. The National Guard has
always performed its mission superbly. The National Guard has been an
active participant in every major American conflict. Today, they are
engaged in over fifty countries around the world. Last year they
provided one and a half million man-days for Federal and State
missions.
The National Guard is a relevant and accessible force. They are
task organized and readily available to both national and State
authorities, for all foreign and domestic missions.
The National Guard is an expandable force. Five times this century,
they have served as the framework on which to build a larger land force
to meet a growing threat. The National Guard serves as ``insurance''
against an unknown future. They can provide the maximum possible number
of missioned units as part of the Army's force structure required to
achieve directed capabilities. They have the expertise and capability
to respond to the needs of the Nation, both Federal and State.
The National Guard is affordable. The Guard provides a majority of
the combat force and over a third of the support units to America's
Army.
facilities strategy
The National Guard is accomplishing new missions and taking on new
responsibilities in addition to its historic domestic and international
roles. To do this, they have higher quality soldiers, trained and
equipped to a higher degree of readiness than ever before. The support
of our communities, States, the Active Army, and the Congress have made
this possible.
Readiness is the key factor of a strong force. To keep citizen-
soldiers ready, the most critical element is training time. We must
minimize distractions, such as travel time to distant training sites,
additional maintenance time on stored equipment, and delays caused by
working in inefficient and obsolete facilities.
Adequate facilities are necessary to meet the level of readiness
demanded by the American people. We have an obligation to provide safe,
cost effective, and mission essential facilities to keep our citizen-
soldiers ready. Modern facilities enhance training, maintenance,
administration, quality of life, and the environment. We continue to
pursue the use of joint installations and facilities by more than one
reserve component, in order to provide cost effective facilities. The
Base Realignment and Closure program has also conveyed facilities and
training land to the National Guard.
Our vision for the National Guard is a relevant force, missioned
across the spectrum of contingencies, structured and resourced to
accomplish its mission when called, with trained citizen-soldiers
committed to preserving timeless traditions of service to our Nation
and communities. Adequate facilities are necessary to provide for the
training, safety, health, and fitness of the force. We envision state-
of-the-art, community based installations and training sites. By virtue
of their geographical disbursement, these sites can be leveraged by the
Active Army and facilitate communications, operations, training, and
equipment sustainment from which to deploy the force.
The facilities program for the Army National Guard benefits the
local community, the State, and the Nation. Federal funds for both
military construction and real property maintenance for many National
Guard facilities are leveraged by States contributing a share of the
design, part of the construction costs, and the site for the facility.
Operations and maintenance costs are a State responsibility for many
State owned facilities. For other facilities, it is a shared
responsibility which reduces Federal costs.
Now, I will discuss several of the highlights of the budget that we
are presenting today.
military construction, army national guard (mcng)
Within our military construction request, we focus on five
investment areas: ranges, training, maintenance support, readiness
centers, and planning and design/minor construction. We have grouped
these into two major categories of projects: mission facilities and
readiness center projects.
mission facilities
In fiscal year 1998 there are eight mission facility projects,
totaling $26,139,000. In fiscal year 1999 there are six such projects,
totaling $19,112,000. Essential mission facilities include several
initiatives such as training site modernization and maintenance
facility revitalization.
Training site modernization.--Fiscal year 1998 continues the slow
process of adapting existing State operated training sites to training
strategies for the 21st century. In fiscal year 1998 we have included a
new project, at $10,229,000, for a multipurpose training range at Camp
Atterbury, Indiana. This will allow enhanced readiness brigade units,
both ground and air, in the central United States to conduct
doctrinally correct crew collective gunnery qualification. It will also
provide lanes training for these same units so that they can maintain
their readiness for early deployment. In fiscal year 1999 we have
included an additional remote electronic targetry system range,
$1,023,000, at Camp Ripley, Minnesota. This project greatly enhances
the utilization and realism of the Camp Ripley range complex and will
permit year-round training in all types of weaponry for soldiers of all
components in all services.
In fiscal year 1998 we have also included the final phase of the
Battalion Training Complex project at Camp Dodge, Iowa, for $4,529,000.
This will permit full utilization of the Equipment Maintenance Center--
CONUS, a national school house for training general and direct support
maintenance units for immediate worldwide deployment. The project
further supports a regional school house, part of the Total Army School
System, which integrates training for all components of the Army.
Maintenance facility revitalization.--In fiscal year 1998 we have
included five projects, totaling $11,381,000, to continue the
revitalization of Army National Guard maintenance facilities. In fiscal
year 1999 we have included an additional four such projects, totaling
$17,474,000. As the Army National Guard has assumed additional real
world deployment missions, it has received the current generation of
equipment. Unfortunately, our maintenance facilities were built to
accommodate the last generation of equipment, which required less space
and less sophisticated facilities. These nine projects are part of a
long standing effort. We need to replace our 1950, 1960, and 1970 era
facilities with ones that permit our undermanned maintenance shops to
have the working environment necessary to keep our modern equipment to
readiness standards.
readiness center projects
Army National Guard soldiers require a training environment that
provides the morale enhancing facilities that will retain them and
lessen the investment cost of initial entry training of their
replacements. A critical focal point of this training is the soldiers'
readiness center. This is also the only place that many Americans see
America's Army on display. Therefore, in fiscal year 1998 we have
included in our program three readiness center revitalization projects,
totaling $9,461,000. In fiscal year 1999 we have included an additional
two projects, totaling $4,528,000.
other program highlights
Unspecified minor military construction, Army National Guard.--The
Army National Guard has allocated $6,698,000 in fiscal year 1998 and
$7,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 to be used worldwide for urgent,
unforeseen projects.
budget request analysis
This request includes a request for appropriations of $45,098,000
in fiscal year 1998 and $33,800,000 in fiscal year 1999, along with
companion requests for authorization and authorization of
appropriations for the same amounts.
The fiscal year 1998 appropriations request, by investment focus,
is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1--INVESTMENT FOCUS APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Appropriations Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranges...................................... $10,229,000 22.6
Training.................................... 4,529,000 10.0
Maintenance Support......................... 11,381,000 25.3
Readiness Centers........................... 9,461,000 21.1
Planning and Design/Minor Construction...... 9,498,000 21.1
---------------------------
Total................................. 45,098,000 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 1999 appropriations request, by investment focus,
is shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2--INVESTMENT FOCUS APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Appropriations Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranges...................................... $1,638,000 4.8
Maintenance Support......................... 17,474,000 51.7
Readiness Centers........................... 4,528,000 13.4
Planning and Design/Minor Construction...... 10,160,000 30.1
---------------------------
Total................................. 33,800,000 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
real property maintenance
The States will continue to prudently manage their existing
facilities, despite the challenges of age and shrinking real property
support funding. Facilities built during the last decade have played a
major role in meeting force structure changes, accomplishing quality
training, maintaining readiness, and improving soldier quality of life.
The operation and maintenance of our physical plant is an issue of
concern. The replacement value of all National Guard facilities exceeds
$16 billion. Their average age is 35 years. States take care of these
facilities using the limited resources in Real Property Maintenance
accounts, as authorized and appropriated by Congress.
They do so, however, in a way appropriate to their unique Federal/
State status. The National Guard Bureau does not own, operate, or
maintain these facilities. The States, Territories, and Commonwealths
perform these functions. The National Guard Bureau transfers to the
States money that Congress authorizes and appropriates for this
purpose. This money supports critical training, aviation and logistical
facilities. For most of the facilities, the States, Territories and
Commonwealths must contribute at least 25 percent of operations and
repair costs.
The States, Territories, and Commonwealths then pay the utility
bills, hire and reimburse employees necessary to operate and maintain
these facilities, buy the supplies necessary for operations and
maintenance, and contract for renovation and construction projects.
They also lease facilities when required.
The Construction and Facility Management Offices are making a
herculean effort to operate and maintain all National Guard facilities.
They will do so for $1.56 a square foot in 1998.
summary
The National Guard is a critical part of America's Army. Today's
challenges are not insurmountable and the National Guard will continue
to provide the best facilities within the resources made available. The
soldiers of the Army National Guard wish to express their appreciation
for the efforts that this subcommittee has made in the past to support
our requirements.
part iii--military construction, army reserve
Next, I present the Army Reserve, representing America's citizen-
soldier, an integral part of, and an essential and relevant partner in,
America's Army. This fact is clearly evidenced by the fact that Army
Reserve units and personnel currently comprise 74 percent of American
Reserve Component forces operating in Bosnia. In addition to relying on
Army Reserve forces to support major worldwide contingencies, the Army
is increasingly dependent on its Army Reserve for support of a wide
variety of daily, ongoing missions at home and abroad during peacetime,
including an expanding role in commanding and controlling Army
installations and providing regional base operations support. Army
Reserve units and soldiers will continue to respond to national
security needs and constrained resources into the 21st century. To
ensure continued readiness, they must have the minimum essential
facilities resources with which to train, support, and sustain our
forces.
facilities strategy
The organization, roles, and missions of the Army Reserve dictate
the need for a widely dispersed inventory of facilities. We occupy
about 1,400 facilities, consisting of more than 2,800 buildings and
structures that have an average age of about 32 years. Army Reserve
operated installations add another 2,600 buildings and structures to
the total inventory. The average age of facilities on these
installations is about 47 years.
In order to effectively carry out our stewardship responsibilities
toward the facilities inventory, the Army Reserve has adopted
priorities and strategies that guide the application of resources. The
program is straightforward: provide essential facilities to improve
readiness and quality of life; preserve and enhance the Army's image
across America; and conserve and protect the facilities resources for
which we are responsible. Our priorities are: provide critical mission
needs of Force Support Package units; address the worst cases of
facilities deterioration and overcrowding; pursue modernization of the
total facilities inventory; and carefully manage Reserve operated
installations. Our strategy for managing Army Reserve facilities and
installations in a resource constrained environment rests on six
fundamentals: reduce leases; dispose of excess facilities; consolidate
units into the best available facilities; use Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) enclaves where practical; use the new Modular Design
System (MDS) to achieve long term cost savings in construction and
design costs; and finally, to pursue economies and efficiencies in
installation management, base operations support, and facilities
engineering.
program highlights
Readiness.--Army Reserve construction program requirements are
different from those of the Active Army. Army Reserve forces are
community based, not installation based, requiring that forces and
facilities be located in hundreds of cities and towns across the
Nation. This dispersion of forces and facilities reduces the
opportunities for regional consolidation and wholesale reductions in
facilities inventory. Units and their facilities must be located in the
communities where soldiers live and where we can recruit. They must be
sufficient to meet the readiness training requirements of the units
stationed in them. Reserve facilities serve as locally based extensions
of the Army's power projection platforms by providing essential and
cost effective places to conduct training, maintenance, storage of
contingency equipment and supplies, and preparation for mobilization
and deployment that simply cannot be accomplished elsewhere. Army
Reserve operated installations support mission essential training for
thousands of soldiers from each component of the Army each year.
Quality of life.--Quality, well maintained facilities provide Army
Reserve units with the means to conduct necessary individual and
collective training, to perform operator and unit maintenance on
vehicles and equipment, and to secure, store, and care for
organizational supplies and equipment. These facilities also provide
other important benefits. Fully functional and well maintained training
centers have a positive impact on recruiting and retention, unit
morale, and the readiness of the full-time support personnel who work
in the facilities on a daily basis. In addition to supporting the
missions of units and support staffs, Reserve facilities project an
important and lasting image of America's Army in the local community.
Modernization.--The plant replacement value (PRV) of Army Reserve
facilities is approximately $3.6 billion and an additional $1.9 billion
for Army Reserve operated installations. The budget requests for fiscal
years 1998 and 1999 address the Army Reserve's highest priorities for
modernizing and revitalizing the inventory and for providing new
facilities in response to new and changing missions.
Installations and base support.--The Army Reserve continues to
undergo significant change as America's Army shapes itself for the 21st
Century. One of these changes is the mission to command and control
former Active Army installations. These installations serve as high
quality, regional training sites for forces of both the Reserve and
Active Components of the Army, as well as the other Armed Services;
provide sites for specialized training; and offer a variety of
supporting facilities. To fulfill this important mission, we must be
able to fund projects that support critical training, mobilization, and
quality of life requirements at the installations. The Army Reserve's
military construction program for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 includes a
total of six projects at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, one of the army's
fifteen power projection platforms. These projects directly support
training and readiness of the force, aircraft operations and safety,
and improved quality of life for thousands of soldiers and civilian
employees who train at the Army Reserve Readiness Training Center each
year. The Army Reserve is also assuming greater responsibilities in
managing base operations support and facilities engineering activities,
using the command, control, and management capabilities of its Regional
Support Commands. This mission reinforces the Army reserve's relevance
and value to the total Army as a provider of combat service support and
other essential infrastructure support in both peacetime and wartime.
budget request analysis
The Military Construction, Army Reserve (MCAR) budget for fiscal
year 1998 includes a request for appropriations of $39,112,000 and a
companion request for authorization of $47,012,000. The amount of the
request for appropriations reflects the Army reserve's application of
unobligated prior year appropriations of $7,900,000 toward the fiscal
year 1998 budget, as directed by the Department of Defense. The amount
of the companion request for authorization reflects the full
authorization of the cost of all projects in the budget request. The
budget for fiscal year 1999 includes a request for appropriation and
authorization of $66,140,000. These budget requests for fiscal years
1998 and 1999, while constrained, provide adequate funds for our
highest priority, most essential requirements, and they are in line
with our commitment to operate successfully in an environment of
constrained resources. They also reflect the priority of maintaining
near term force readiness and meeting critical requirements for
military construction that directly supports that readiness. The MCAR
appropriation includes three categories of funding: Major Construction,
Unspecified Minor Construction, and Planning and Design.
--(1) Major construction.--These funds provide for essential
construction, revitalization, expansion, alteration, or
conversion of facilities, and for land acquisition, when
required. For fiscal year 1998, our request for an
appropriation of $34,012,000, with a companion authorization
request of $41,912,000, will fund the construction of one new
Army Reserve center in California and four projects at Fort
McCoy, Wisconsin: a new billeting facility at the Army Reserve
Readiness Training Center; provision of electrical power to
various training ranges; and revitalization of rifle and pistol
ranges. The fiscal year 1999 requests for appropriation and
authorization of $58,640,000 will fund construction of three
Army Reserve centers in Michigan, Tennessee, and Virginia; an
Aviation Support Facility in Virginia that supports new mission
requirements; and two projects at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin: a new
airfield crash rescue station to replace an inadequate and
unsafe facility; and construction of a machine gun range to
support training readiness.
--(2) Unspecified minor construction.--These funds provide for
construction of projects not otherwise authorized by law, and
which have a funded cost of less than $1,500,000. Unspecified
minor construction may include construction, alteration, or
conversion of permanent or temporary facilities. This program
provides an important means to accomplish small projects that
are not now identified, but which may arise during the fiscal
year, and that must be accomplished to satisfy critical but
unforeseen mission requirements. Based on the availability of
unobligated prior year funds, the Army Reserve has adjusted its
budget request for fiscal year 1998 to include no funds for
unspecified minor construction. The budget request for 1999 is
$1,500,000.
--(3) Planning and design.--These funds provide for a continuous,
multi-year process of designing construction projects for
execution in the budget years and beyond. Planning and design
activities include the preparation of engineering designs,
drawings, specifications, and solicitation documents necessary
to execute major and unspecified minor construction projects.
Planning and design funds are also required to support the Army
reserve's share of the costs of the continued development of
the Modular Design System as an effective and cost and time
saving facility design tool. Our budget requests for planning
and design are $5,100,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $6,000,000
for fiscal year 1999.
Real property maintenance (RPM).--Another important issue that is
directly linked to stewardship responsibilities for facilities and
installations is funding for real property maintenance (RPM). Although
provided separately by the Operations and Maintenance Army Reserve
(OMAR) appropriation, these funds complement military construction
(MILCON) funds to round out the total resources necessary to manage the
Army reserve's facilities inventory. Long term resource constraints in
both military construction and real property maintenance have a
combined effect of increasing the rates of aging and deterioration of
facilities and infrastructure. In exercising our stewardship
responsibilities for facilities that belong to the American taxpayer,
we are applying available resources to only the most critical military
maintenance and repair needs.
summary
In summary, as the national military strategy has changed to meet
the challenges of the next century, the Army Reserve has grown in its
importance to the execution of that strategy. The men and women of the
Army Reserve have consistently demonstrated that they can and will
respond to the missions and challenges assigned to them. Our Reserve
facilities and installations are valuable resources that support force
readiness and power projection, while serving as highly visible links
between America's Army and America itself. We are grateful to the
Congress and the Nation for the support you have given and continue to
give to the Army Reserve and our most valuable resource, our soldiers.
part iv--base realignment and closure (brac)
introduction
Closing and realigning installations have been a major part of the
Army's reshaping efforts during the past decade. The Army is entering
the final third of a 13 year implementation effort that spans four
rounds of closures. We are now saving more than is being spent. By
implementing BRAC, the Army is complying with the law, while saving
money that would otherwise support unneeded overhead. These closed
assets are now available for productive reuse in the private sector.
BRAC savings do not come immediately because of the up front costs
for implementation and the time it takes to close and dispose of
property. The resulting savings are not as substantial as originally
anticipated because potential land, facilities and equipment revenues
are being converted to local economic opportunities that create jobs
and expand the tax base. Environmental costs are significant and are
being funded up front to facilitate economic revitalization. The
remaining challenges that lie ahead are implementing the final two
rounds, BRAC 93 and 95, ahead of schedule, disposing of property at
closed bases, cleaning up contaminated property and assisting
communities with reuse.
In fiscal year 1998, we will begin to focus almost exclusively on
BRAC 1995, the last of the four rounds. The fiscal year 1998 and 1999
budgets are important because they contain over 40 percent of the
resources needed over the six year implementation period in support of
the BRAC 1995 round.
The Army is accelerating all BRAC actions to obtain savings and
return assets to the private sector as quickly as feasible. All of the
five closures approved by the 1991 Commission have already occurred. In
fiscal year 1997, we are closing Vint Hill Farms Station, Virginia, two
years early. This was the only closure recommended by the 1993
Commission. We are also closing the first of the installations
recommended by the 1995 Commission: Fort Chaffee, Arkansas; Fort
Pickett, Virginia; Baltimore Publications Center; Maryland; Stratford
Engine Plant, Connecticut; Fort Totten, New York; Detroit Tank Plant,
Michigan; and Fort Missoula, Montana.
The fiscal year 1998 budget supports completing the
disestablishment of the Aviation and Troop Command in St. Louis,
Missouri; continuing a major construction program at Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri, to house the military police and chemical schools relocating
from Fort McClellan, Alabama, and the closure of Fort Indiantown Gap,
Pennsylvania.
Although the extensive overseas closures do not receive the same
level of public attention as those in the United States, they represent
the fundamental shift from a forward deployed force to one relying upon
overseas presence and power projection. Without the need for a
Commission, we are closing about seven of ten overseas sites in Europe,
where we are reducing the number of installations by 68 percent. Forty
partial closures represent an additional 5 percent. Reductions in
infrastructure roughly parallel troop reductions of 70 percent. In
Korea, the number of installations are dropping from 104 to 83, or 20
percent. Another 8 percent are partial closures.
While we constantly evaluate the role of forward deployed forces,
overseas presence helps to reassure friends and deter potential
enemies. It can reduce our response time in crises by positioning
forces nearer potential trouble spots. On a typical day, the Army has
138,000 soldiers providing overseas presence in 120 countries. This
provides tangible proof of the Nation's commitment to defend American
interests and those of our allies.
The President's Five Part Community Reinvestment Program, announced
on July 2, 1993, speeds economic recovery of communities where military
bases are closing by investing in people, investing in industry and
investing in communities. The Army is making its bases available more
quickly for economic redevelopment because of the additional
authorities we now have.
The Army has been working with communities to convert military
bases to public and private uses. Just last year, the Army completed an
economic development conveyance of the large maintenance facility at
Tooele Depot, Utah, to the local community, which has completed a
business arrangement with Detroit Diesel Remanufacturing Corporation to
spur economic development and create jobs. Significant parcels of
property were also conveyed at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, and
Fort Devens, Massachusetts. Local and State redevelopment authorities
are projecting new employment levels that far exceed those of the Army
when the bases were active. We are also partnering with local reuse
authorities to conduct cost effective cleanup efforts, consistent with
local reuse plans and prudent expenditure of resources.
base realignment and closure--overseas
On September 18, 1990, the Secretary of Defense announced the first
round of overseas bases to be returned. Since that time, there have
been a total of 22 announcements. On January 14, 1993, DOD announced it
will withdraw all U.S. military forces from the Republic of Panama and
transfer all facilities by December 31, 1999. Of the 13 sites in Panama
announced for closure, ten have been returned. The total number of
overseas sites announced for closure or partial closure is 664.
Additional announcements will occur until the base structure matches
the force identified to meet U.S. commitments. At this time, we do not
see the need for many more overseas closures.
Installations
Germany........................................................... 573
Korea............................................................. 29
France............................................................ 21
Panama............................................................ 13
Netherlands....................................................... 6
Turkey............................................................ 6
United Kingdom.................................................... 5
Greece............................................................ 4
Italy............................................................. 4
Belgium........................................................... 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
664
Most of the 188 million square feet (MSF) of overseas reductions
are in Europe, where we are returning over 600 sites. This is
equivalent to closing 12 of our biggest installations in the U.S.--Fort
Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Benning, Fort Stewart, Fort Leonard Wood, Fort
Lewis, Fort Bliss, Fort Carson, Fort Gordon, Fort Meade, Fort Campbell
and Redstone Arsenal. Unquestionably, these reductions are substantial
and have produced savings to sustain readiness.
The process for closing overseas is much different than in the U.S.
First, unified commanders nominate overseas sites for return or partial
return to host nations. Next, the Joint Staff, various DOD components,
National Security Council and State Department review these
nominations. After the Secretary of Defense approves them, DOD notifies
Congress, host governments and the media. The Army ends operations by
vacating the entire installation and returning it to the host nation.
If we reduce operations, we end up keeping some of the facilities.
base realignment and closure 1988--base closure account (bca) i
BRAC 1988 overview.--Though this round has been completed, the work
of property disposal and environmental remediation will continue for
several years. In late 1996, the Army completed the sale of the former
Cameron Station, Virginia, to a residential developer for $33 million.
BRAC 1988 financial summary.--The one-time cost to implement was
$1,361,279,000. The one-time savings during implementation were
$721,011,000. Annual recurring savings of $259,611,000 began in fiscal
year 1996.
BRAC 1988 environmental cleanup and compliance.--Cleanup is
complete at 460 of 885 (52 percent) sites. Eleven BRAC Cleanup Teams
and nine Restoration Advisory Boards work on these environmental
issues.
base realignment and closure 91 (brac 91)--base closure account (bca)
ii
BRAC 91 overview.--Public Law 101-510, the Defense Base Realignment
and Closure Act of 1990, established a new process for base realignment
and closure actions in the United States through 1995. The first phase
of this new process is known as BRAC 91 and the funding account is
referred to as BCA II. The Army is currently in the final year of the
six year execution period. All closures are completed. The realignment
of the Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, Maryland in 1997 completes
this round.
BRAC 91 financial summary.--One-time implementation costs during
the period fiscal year 1992-97 totals $1,419,433,000. The largest
component is military construction, which accounts for 38 percent of
the program. Savings during the same period are $1,181,201,000,
primarily due to the elimination of 5,648 civilian positions and
reduced operating costs for installations being realigned or closed.
Recurring savings are estimated to be $303,825,000, starting in fiscal
year 1997. Proceeds from land sales are anticipated to be $37,498,000
million.
BRAC 91 environmental cleanup and compliance.--Cleanup is complete
at 136 of 235 sites (58 percent). Five BRAC Cleanup Teams and five
Restoration Advisory Boards are working at closing sites.
base realignment and closure 93 (brac 93)--base closure account (bca)
iii
BRAC 93 overview.--The Army is in its fourth year of a six year
execution period. During fiscal year 1997 the Army will close Vint Hill
Farms Station, Virginia. The Army is working very closely with the
local redevelopment authority to expedite reuse of the installation in
support of economic recovery.
BRAC 93 financial summary.--One time implementation costs during
the period fiscal year 1994-97 totals $288,953,000. Savings during the
same period are $206,892,000, primarily due to the elimination of 1,113
civilian positions and reduced operating costs of installations being
realigned or closed. We estimate our recurring savings to be
$67,727,000, starting in fiscal year 1999. Land sales are expected to
be deferred as part of the economic development conveyance process and
will be collected in the future as economic development occurs.
BRAC 93 environmental cleanup and compliance.--Cleanup is complete
at 12 of 68 sites (18 percent). Three BRAC Cleanup Teams and three
Restoration Advisory Boards (RAB) are working to accelerate cleanup.
base realignment and closure 95 (brac 95)--base closure account (bca)
iv
BRAC 95 overview.--The Army is in its second year of a six year
execution period. The Army expects to close Fort Chaffee, Fort Pickett,
Stratford Army Engine Plant and several minor installations in fiscal
year 1997. In fiscal year 1998, the Army will complete the
disestablishment of Aviation and Troop Command in St. Louis and return
Fort Indiantown.Gap to the State of Pennsylvania.
BRAC 95 financial summary.--One time implementation costs during
the period fiscal year 1996-2001 are currently estimated to total
$2,140,995,000. Savings during the same period are $1,197,973,000,
primarily due to the elimination of 4,247 civilian positions in the
Army and reduced operating costs of installations being realigned or
closed. An additional 1,431 positions from DOD's medical program are
being eliminated as a result of the closure or realignment of medical
facilities at our installations. We estimate recurring savings to be
$363,578,000 starting in fiscal year 2002. Land sales are expected to
be deferred as part of the economic development conveyance process and
will be collected in the future as economic development occurs.
BRAC 95 environmental cleanup and compliance.--Cleanup is complete
at 183 of 716 sites (26 percent). Twenty BRAC Cleanup Teams and
seventeen Restoration Advisory Boards (RAB) are working to accelerate
cleanup.
summary
Closing and realigning bases saves money that otherwise goes to
unneeded overhead and frees up valuable assets for productive reuse.
These savings permit us to invest properly in the forces and bases we
keep to ensure their continued effectiveness. Our debt to local
communities keeps us dedicated to the rapid reuse of our installations,
so local communities can realize the opportunities that base closures
can bring. The Army is supporting the rapid redevelopment of
communities affected by BRAC by using the economic development
conveyance authorities established by the Congress. Real property
assets are being conveyed to local communities, and cleaned
environmentally when necessary, thereby permitting communities to
quickly enter into business arrangements with the private sector. These
business arrangements are producing jobs and tax revenues at the local
level which, over time, will allow some revenues to return to the Army.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you.
barracks projects overseas
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, the 1998 budget request contains eight
barracks projects overseas, for a total of about $119 million.
I guess my question is, is that inadequate, or are we investing
too much overseas in new barracks in Europe and Germany as we
have significant amounts of barracks domestically in this
country sorely in need of repair?
I cite Fort Sill. I saw some quarters there that really
need replacing and some facilities that we need to replace on
some of our posts here in this country to meet the one plus
one.
Are we making the investment in the wrong place? Are we
investing in Europe and Korea and maybe not making the adequate
investment here?
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, we are trying to provide a
balanced program. In our barracks program, as I mentioned, we
have taken the old barracks renewal program, which said we
would not finish completing renovating barracks to the one plus
one standard by the year 2020, and we have rolled that back and
now will complete all barracks in the United States by 2008.
We are not going to complete that overseas until the year
2012, out of recognition of what you say. But I must tell you
that we have some bad barracks all over, and some of the worst
barracks I have ever seen are in Korea and Germany. I have been
going to Korea, for instance, since the early 1980's. We are
still using 50-year-old Quonset huts for American soldiers to
live in that should have been torn down when I first went to
Korea in 1983.
So we have an obligation to our soldiers, wherever they may
be, and what we are trying to do is put an adequate amount of
money so we can conclude this barracks renewal program
throughout the Army as soon as possible.
Senator Burns. It looks like throughout our part of the
country the Quonset Corp., still sells building--grain, machine
sheds, this kind of thing. Maybe they had better go over and
take some pictures and see how long their product lasts?
Mr. Walker. It is amazing.
Senator Burns. I think we have done an adequate job of
maintaining and using them a long time.
brac
I want to ask you now, in light of that, and with the
announcement a couple of days ago, Secretary Walker--and I
guess this might be a little too quick, but I would give rise
to the thought that with the announcement from the Secretary of
Defense and from the President that they are suggesting another
round of BRAC, base realignment and closure, and when we start
talking about making investments, and then looking down the
line--and I personally, with the demand that has been put on
the cleanup and especially the underestimation of what our
environmental liability was and the cost of taking care of that
liability on these closures--I am wondering if you are starting
to put together plans that right now we have to start watching
where we invest for this future round, if it comes to pass, of
BRAC.
Mr. Walker. Well, Mr. Chairman, of course, Secretary Cohen
has not told us yet exactly what his plan is. That will be
announced on May 19, I believe, Monday next.
We probably do need another BRAC, though, Mr. Chairman. The
numbers of soldiers have declined far faster than our
infrastructure, although I must tell you that in the Army most
of our soldiers were taken out of Europe, where we have had
large base closures there.
Here in the United States, fewer soldiers have been reduced
proportionately to the number of soldiers overall. But even
with that said, we still have some flexibility, I believe, in
order to save some funds for the future.
What we are finding with regard to base closures is what
you point out. It is very expensive on the front end. But the
past four BRAC base closures that we have had are going to
result, by the year 2001, in a savings to the Army budget of $1
billion, on an annual basis that we would not have saved. So if
you can get past the first few years--that is the difficult
part--then you do end up saving money.
Senator Burns. With the new approach of providing the seed
money for off-base housing and a commitment to our family
housing especially, whenever we close a base or that facility
closes down, we still have obligations in that area. Does that
concern you?
Mr. Walker. Well, of course, that has also been true for
several years. We had the 801 housing program, which had some
very large leases throughout all military services. That has
been on the books for some time. So we faced that before in
base closure rounds.
Senator Burns. I bring that up, with the suggestion that we
have to start thinking in those kind of directions. It may
change our planners' approach a little bit on how we plan for
the future and what facilities. I personally do not think
another BRAC round can probably start until maybe the year
2001, maybe 2002, because we still have commitments from the
old rounds that still have to be met, and we can only support
the closing of so many financially, no matter what your
feelings are about what size the Army ought to be.
I am concerned about the declining numbers in Korea and
Germany, and when we make those investments are we building a
facility to abandon later on. I ask that because I think
sometime we better make the investment in this country.
Mr. Walker. Well, I think the President has, and Secretary
Cohen on his recent trip to Korea, indicated the troop levels
will stay pretty much the same in Korea. And I think we are
still looking at about 100,000 total, 65,000 Army, in Germany.
So unless QDR makes a change on that, we do not anticipate any
substantial change in the numbers of troops we have forward-
deployed.
planning/expansion of nato
Senator Burns. In your planning stages, the expansion of
NATO, does that enter the planning or the mindset of our
planners at all?
Mr. Walker. No, sir; we have not been asked to do anything
on that.
Senator Burns. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
reductions to active and reserve forces
Secretary Walker, I noted that the lead article in the
Washington Post yesterday indicated that the quadrennial
defense review process includes a proposal to cut the Army by
15,000 but also cut the Army Guard and Reserves by some 70,000,
most of that coming from the Army Guard.
Is that report accurate and, if it is, does that represent
a fair balance in reductions between the Active and Reserve and
Guard Forces?
Mr. Walker. Well, Senator Murray, I read that same article
yesterday, and I must tell you I regret I cannot confirm or
deny, because I really do not know what the answer is. I do not
know if the Army staff coordinated their original proposal with
the Army National Guard or not.
But I do know that the Army staff did not coordinate their
original proposal with the members of the Secretariat. I have
not been briefed, for instance, on any Army staff proposal.
And, according to another press report today, the Secretary of
Defense had given the service chiefs great latitude in
determining the mix of cuts.
So, like you, I am very interested in seeing what the Army
staff has proposed, and I regret I do not know the answer to
your question.
Senator Murray. Well, the Post indicated that the Guard had
been excluded from the decisionmaking process, and I wanted to
know if you knew if that was true or not and whether you
thought the Guard agreed with the level of reduction that was
being proposed.
Mr. Walker. You would need to ask the Guard. I understand
the leadership of the Guard is probably in town discussing that
issue today.
Senator Murray. Well, thank you. Let me move to another
area, then.
You mentioned in your opening remarks the propensity for
young people not to go into the Army today and the declining
number of people. One of the things I know when I talk to young
people that we are looking at recruiting is that they talk
about the quality of life issues.
child development centers
One of the issues that often comes forward is whether or
not there is any child development centers for young people and
their families. I notice that there are no child development
centers in the Army's budget request. I thought DOD had a goal
for providing child care facilities. If you could tell me why
we do not see that and what is in the budget in terms of that,
I would appreciate it.
Mr. Walker. Senator, I think we have roughly 165 child
development centers throughout the Army. The goal is to have 65
percent of our eligible children in child development centers.
This year I think we are going to make 64 percent. We are
almost there.
In addition to organic child development centers on
military bases, we also have an aggressive program of inhouse
child care, where you certify homes for child care. So we think
we are doing a good job at child development. Even though there
is not a new child development center project in the budget, we
think the right thing is being done.
quality of life issues
Senator Murray. OK. What about other quality of life issues
like community centers or physical fitness centers, those kinds
of things, that really add to the quality of life?
Mr. Walker. You are right. As I mentioned, you do not see
very many of them in the budget, very many of those kinds of
facilities, not very many of operational or mission facilities.
We have put our emphasis on quality of life in terms of
barracks, and that is where we are putting most of the money
now.
We have many requirements out there like that that we have
still got to figure out a way to fund in the future.
Senator Murray. Do you know what the unmet need is?
Mr. Walker. I do not, but I will be glad to provide that
for the record.
[The information follows:]
Other Quality of Life Facilities
With regard to fitness centers, the U.S. Army emphasizes total
fitness to meet its contingency and mobilization requirements. Although
facilities continue to need renovation or replacement (average age is
53 years), resources have been insufficient to fund all of the Army's
infrastructure revitalization requirements. Our current Future Years
Defense Program includes funding in Military Construction, Army (MCA)
of Physical Fitness Training Centers in: fiscal year 1999 at Fort
Detrick ($3.5 million BRAC/$3.1 million MCA); fiscal year 2001 at
Walter Reed Army Medical Center ($6.0 million); fiscal year 2003 at
Fort Eustis ($4.3 million).
A Soldier Community Building is included as part of each Whole
Barracks Renewal Complex. This facility provides social gathering
areas, room for recreational activities, and multi-purpose meeting
space.
With regard to community centers, family centers, libraries, and
other quality of life facilities, resources have been insufficient to
fund the Army's requirements.
Senator Murray. I would really appreciate seeing that. I
think if we want to encourage young people to come into the
Army--and we do need to do that--that these are astute young
people and they are looking around at the other opportunities
that are available, and quality of life is absolutely critical.
Mr. Walker. You are exactly right, Senator. It is a
competition out there. We are in competition with the rest of
the civilian economy and we have got to compete.
family housing improvement fund
Senator Murray. I also notice that there is no
appropriation request for the family housing improvement fund
for fiscal year 1998, and I wanted to know how the Army planned
to execute this program next year.
Mr. Walker. Senator, we will provide an answer for the
record for that.
Senator Murray. I would appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
Family Improvement Fund
The Office of the Secretary of Defense centrally manages programs
and budgets for the DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund (FHIF). The
fund received direct appropriations of $22 million in fiscal year 1996
and $25 million in fiscal year 1997. These funds are available until
expended; approximately $30 million remains available to finance
projects.
Consistent with design of the initiative, project award will use
cash, land, and/or facilities depending on the site and terms of the
contract. Some sites may not require any up-front money. However, if
cash is needed (for example, mortgage guarantees), funds will come from
either the family housing construction account at that site, or the
Army will request funding from the centrally managed FHIF.
relocation of southcom
Senator Burns. Let us talk about one of my favorite
projects, the relocation of the Southern Command. I think I
have brought this up 3 years ago--I do not know how long it has
been. But I still question the wisdom of moving from Panama to
Miami. I do not question the wisdom of moving it maybe back in
the contiguous States, but you have got a request in here for
$2.3 million for general and staff officer housing.
And yet we are requiring some enlisted people to move into
an area where you have a very high cost of living and, you
know, we all have champagne tastes, but most of us are on
Miller payrolls. It does not lead to a very, very good
situation, given the area in which they are moving.
I have no problem with living in Miami year-round, but I
also know that these families--I have often wondered, as
Senator Murray said a while ago, attracting young people to the
military services, we hear the complaint of housing facilities.
I tell you what. That was the last thing that was on my
mind when I joined the U.S. Marine Corps in 1955. But I will
say that after you are in the service and you find that people
that you want to retain, then the amenities become very, very
important in the retention of qualified soldiers and people
that we want to make career people.
So would you comment on this relocation and try to put my
mind at ease that we are doing the right thing in this
situation, especially when we have facilities that might be
located in Florida but might not be in Dade County, to be
specific?
Mr. Walker. Senator, with regard to your general statement,
there is a saying in the Army that you enlist soldiers but you
reenlist families. I think that is very true.
Since that is true, that was one of the concerns that we
had with the SOUTHCOM relocation when the Army was given the
executive agency responsibility to execute that. We sent a team
from the Corps of Engineers down there to do a family housing
survey to find out if soldiers could afford living down there.
And they found in their survey that most soldiers could
afford adequate housing, given the housing allowances that are
available. But even with that said, we know that younger
soldiers, junior enlisted, both single soldiers and junior
enlisted with families, many of them who have larger families
or families with special needs still have specific
requirements.
So as a result of that, we will be moving about 225
enlisted into the area totally. We have sought and secured the
ability to lease housing for about 120 of them, and we are
going to be leasing 62 junior enlisted housing for the larger
families and those with particular situations and 60 junior
enlisted unaccompanied housing units in the area.
We are doing that for just the reason that you mentioned,
because we feel that there would be a special burden on some of
those, and we hope that that will be sufficient to ensure that
when we check the next time the reenlistments of SOUTHCOM we
will find that the reenlistment rates are still high.
Senator Burns. I have still got my questions, I guess,
about that move, but it does not make any difference what one
guy thinks and another guy. I just thought it sounded funny at
the time.
disciplinary barracks--Fort leavenworth
There is a $63 million project to build a new disciplinary
barracks at Fort Leavenworth. That is about 10 percent of your
total Milcon allocation. It is my understanding that it houses
prisoners from all services and a significant number of these
inmates participate in a work release program throughout the
fort, such as barber shops and different things.
Why are we building a prison facility at Fort Leavenworth
that is nicer and more modern than many barracks that we are
trying to fight so hard for on our military posts for the good
soldiers?
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, I think when we finish the new
facility it is not going to be a place any of us would like to
live. It is going to be a prison. There is no question about
it. It is going to be small rooms and small beds and a big door
that slams closed every night. I do not think we are going to
see any soldiers trying to trade their barracks room for it
intentionally.
The truth is, we are using essentially the same kind of
design that the Federal Bureau of Prisons uses for their
prisons. So it is not going to be--these are long-term
prisoners that will be there. It is not going to be a very
pleasant place to live.
It is a lot of money, and I will tell you honestly that the
project got slipped for the last 2 years because of other
requirements. We have reached the point that we really cannot
slip it any longer. The reason we are spending this amount of
money for this project is because the current disciplinary
barracks is, frankly, just unsafe.
The Corps of Engineers has gone in there and we have had
three other consultants go in there to verify that there is a
safety problem there. It was built back in the early 1900's by
prison labor, and, I will tell you, it is a challenge. The
bricks just fall off the wall.
Senator Burns. What do you plan to do with the old building
if this project is approved?
Mr. Walker. Well, we plan to mothball it. It is not going
to be used. We are not sure whether we can tear it down or not
because it falls under the National Historic Preservation Act.
So there is a process you have to go through there.
Senator Burns. The only thing is, there at Fort Leavenworth
I think Custer's horse is still there, isn't he? [Laughter.]
Mr. Walker. It is a very historic base.
Senator Burns. I think so.
Fort Carson--Housing Privatization
Fort Carson, a plan to privatize all family housing is at
Fort Carson, CO. The initiative will revitalize, what, 1,824
existing units and construct 840 units. Do you want to bring us
up to date on that?
Mr. Walker. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The request for proposals is
out. There have been about, I believe, around 300 responses,
which is just an enormous response, much more than we expected.
So we believe as a result of that that we are going to see a
very competitive project, a project that is going to result in
family housing a lot quicker for soldiers there than otherwise
would have been.
At the current rates of funding that were going in there,
it would have taken 50 to 75 years to revitalize all that
housing. Now, the 1,824 units of family housing that is there
will be revitalized in 5 years and the additional units that
are going to be built will be built in 5 years.
We believe that the project is on track for an award
sometime this summer.
Senator Burns. The BRAC announcement, would that change
emphasis on that project there, should it come to pass? You do
not know?
Mr. Walker. Of course, we do not know what Secretary Cohen
is going to recommend at this point.
Senator Burns. I think just as a suggestion, you know, if
that announcement is made on that BRAC, I would say that
planners will have to go back to work anyway. We may be having
lots of meetings and sitting down and reprogramming, and this
type of thing.
Senator Murray, do you have any more questions?
guard and reserve budgets
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one
more. I continue to be concerned with the request for Guard and
Reserves that you just talked about for 1 minute.
Does the military construction budget reflected in your
request mean that the Army can do without the Guard and Reserve
in a wartime situation?
Senator Walker. Well, no, we cannot. That is for sure. I
just came from Bosnia over the weekend, and there in Bosnia I
think we have got about 3,500 Guard and Reserve personnel. To
give you an example, at any given time, any day of the year we
have about 30,000 soldiers who are deployed for a variety of
missions. Of those soldiers, 7,000 to 8,000 are Guard and
Reserve, primarily Guard soldiers or units that are deployed
just like active duty.
Today in the European theater, when you add it all up, we
have about 6,000 that are Guard and Reserve. We saw
demonstrated very clearly in the Persian Gulf war that 60 to 70
percent, and it may be more in the future, of our combat
support and combat service support, for instance, has to come
out of the Guard and Reserve. Other units, such as artillery
units and others performed magnificently.
So we cannot go anywhere anymore as an Army, we cannot
deploy without the Guard and Reserve. So it does not reflect
that. It reflects very simply that we did not have enough
money.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Secretary Walker, thank you this morning. I
am sure there will be other questions and other committee
members may have some questions. If we could channel those
letters to you and if you could respond to the individual
Senator and to the committee, I would certainly appreciate
that. We will leave the record open.
I think with the recent announcement--and I will tell you
very sincerely I appreciate your cooperation and we may be
working together a little more closely on some projects as the
world changes and as our approach to national defense changes.
So I appreciate your thoughts and your cooperation.
Additional committee questions
Mr. Walker. I look forward to working with you.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walker. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
national guard milcon funding
Question. Mr. Secretary, I applaud the Army's effort in securing
some funding for the Army National Guard. $45 million is a starting
point, but I am concerned that the proposed funding drops to $33.8
million in fiscal year 1999. What is the proposed funding for the Army
Guard in the out years?
Answer. The military construction funding for the Army National
Guard as published in the current Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP)
submitted to Congress with the fiscal year 1998 budget is as follows:
fiscal year 2000, $44.9 million; fiscal year 2001, $31.137 million;
fiscal year 2002, $34.037 million; and fiscal year 2003, $36.937
million. However, the Army reviews these funding levels as it develops
each year's budget for submission to Congress.
Question. How does the Department propose to continue this forward
momentum?
Answer. Since the Army transitioned to six functional Program
Evaluation Groups in 1996, the avenues of communication between the
Army National Guard (ARNG) and the Assistant Chief of Staff for
Installation Management (ACSIM) have strengthened. The ARNG and ACSIM
meet frequently on budget and planning issues. The ARNG has placed a
senior officer on a series of short temporary active duty tours to work
full-time at the ACSIM. The ACSIM has integrated the ARNG into their
requirements generation model. The ARNG reports its facility issues
through the Army's Installation Status Report. We believe that these
actions will continue the forward momentum.
Question. How does the Army determine what the priorities are
between the various Guard projects competing for limited funding?
Answer. We set priorities by ranking projects using the following
criteria: readiness priorities of the units supported by the facility
(40 percent), the adequacy of the existing facility (35 percent), and
the priority the individual State places on the project (25 percent).
To break ties when preparing a budget we also examine the design status
of the project and the State's proven ability to execute military
construction.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I understand that the Army is proceeding
with the full privatization of family housing at Fort Carson with a
contract award date of July. With Secretary Cohen's recent announcement
that he wants two more rounds of base closure, why would we want to
endorse any leasing arrangement which provides guarantees against base
closure?
Answer. First, the Army does not make its base closure decisions
based solely on investments in its installations, whether the
investment is in facilities construction, or in guarantees such as
this.
Second, the housing initiative provides essential support to
provide the adequate housing we owe our military families. To
accomplish a privatization initiative we must include some type of
guarantee for the contractor. The Army recognizes that there is a
future risk of base closure, but such a guarantee is the only way to
make the financial risk acceptable to the private sector.
Question. Any installation with a housing privatization deal would
be protected in future rounds of base closure, because of the costs to
buy the government out of the lease. This would seem to lock the Army
into Fort Carson for the next 50 years, is that correct?
Answer. No. We believe we can negotiate an equitable settlement.
And, since the criteria for establishing the military value of our
installations has not been agreed to, I would be speculating on those
installations that should be retained, closed or realigning. Further,
the size and type of force structure will, if a new round of base
closures is approved by Congress, have an effect on those installations
retained in our infrastructure.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth
base realignment and closure
Question. As I look over the portion of your statement on ``Base
Realignment and Closure,'' (BRAC), I'm very concerned about all the
money that is being spent at the time of closure. In fact, it is so
great that in every case, from BRAC 1988 through BRAC 1995, both your
actual and planned spending exceeded or exceeds the actual or planned
savings over the six-year implementation period. For what is all this
spending? Why is so much new construction needed at a base that is
being closed?
Answer. The majority of the costs associated with the closure or
realignment of an installation are for the movement or separation of
personnel, transfer or procurement of equipment, environmental
restoration of the excess land, and construction of new facilities at
the gaining installation. New construction is required at gaining
installations for the functions and missions that are transferred or
realigned from other installations. We are not constructing new
facilities at installations that are closing. Although there are
expenses associated with each BRAC round, the resulting savings in
infrastructure costs are far greater.
Question. Break down the savings over the implementation period.
You say it is primarily from elimination of civilian jobs. What portion
is from this and what portion is from ``reduced operating costs?''
Answer. The following chart provides the annual savings by fiscal
year and the civilian personnel reductions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC 88........................................................... -23.0 -10.2 -34.8 -56.3 -119.8 -240.3 -259.6 -259.6 -259.6
BRAC 91........................................................... ....... ....... ....... -55.1 -105.5 -198.9 -241.3 -276.6 -303.8
BRAC 93........................................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ -10.9 -1.6 -20.3 -48.5
BRAC 95........................................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ........ ........ -19.2 -16.6
CIV RED........................................................... ....... ....... 20.0 1,364.0 2,386.0 3,312.0 1,129.0 757.0 3,410.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------------------ Total
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC 88................................. -259.6 -259.6 -259.6 -259.6 -259.6 -259.6 -2,820.8
BRAC 91................................. -303.8 -303.8 -303.8 -303.8 -303.8 -303.8 -3,004.0
BRAC 93................................. -61.0 -67.7 -67.7 -67.7 -67.7 -67.7 -480.8
BRAC 95................................. -195.7 -255.4 -347.5 -363.6 -363.6 -363.6 -1,925.2
CIV RED................................. 2,856.0 647.0 380.0 101.0 ........ ........ 16,362.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army has eliminated 16,362 civilian positions during the first
four rounds of BRAC. These eliminations account for $831 million of the
$994 million annual recurring savings. The remainder of the savings is
from reduced base operating costs.
Question. You indicated that resulting savings are lower than
anticipated. By how much? What are these ``local economic opportunities
that create jobs and expand the tax base?'' Are you giving away moneys
that you had originally intended would come back to the Federal
Government? How are these moneys transferred?
Answer. The Army originally over-projected potential land sale
revenues. In the first two BRAC rounds $1.7 billion in savings were
projected, however, $108 million has been realized to date.
The Army uses Economic Development Conveyance, as authorized by
Congress, as a vehicle for local economic opportunities that create
jobs and expand the tax base. Following the July 1993 announcement of
the President's program to revitalize base closure communities,
Congress created a new property conveyance authority, designed
specifically to ease the economic hardship caused by base closures.
Section 2903 of Title XXIX, Public Law 101-510, gives the Department of
Defense the authority to transfer property to Local Redevelopment
Authorities, for consideration at or below fair market value to spur
economic redevelopment and job creation. If any loss is incurred by the
Federal Government it would be lost land sales revenues that might have
been generated if property were at fair market value. No BRAC moneys
are transferred to state or local governments.
DOD does provide grants to Local Redevelopment Authorities through
the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to assist the local communities
in developing reuse plans and other activities required to transition
properties to civilian reuse. The money granted by OEA is not part of
the BRAC account, but is appropriated as a line item in the defense
wide Operation and Maintenance Appropriation.
Question. Can we count on the ``recurring savings'' as all federal
revenue, or are some of these savings transferred to the local economy?
For how many years will the ``recurring savings'' continue to flow in?
How can we be certain that these annual savings will not be lower than
anticipated, just as the savings over the implementation were and are?
Answer. The ``recurring savings'' generated as a result of BRAC are
not revenues. They are costs that are avoided as a result of a closure
or realignment. When an installation is closed, the Army no longer
incurs the costs for operating that facility. This includes, but is not
limited to, civilian payroll and base operations costs (utilities, and
repair and maintenance). These ``recurring savings'' are permanent and
will continue indefinitely.
Question. Would you send up the detailed economic analyses that
accompany BRAC decisions? I would like to see the original estimates of
costs and savings and a comparison of the actual costs and savings that
you are sure of today. What was the original, estimated payback period,
and what has the actual payback period turned out to be? I'm assuming
that the costs turned out to be higher than anticipated and the savings
turned out to be lower than anticipated. Is that a correct assumption?
Answer. All original estimates are contained in the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Commission's final reports to the President.
Attached is a summary of the Commissions final analysis. Also attached
is a summary of the Army's current budget submission of costs and
savings to date. BRAC closure and realignment decisions were based on a
decision modeling tool called COBRA (Cost of Base Realignment Actions).
Office of the Secretary of Defense policy did not permit the
consideration of environmental costs in BRAC decisionmaking since
clean-up would have to be accomplished whether or not a base is closed.
In fact, budgeted costs are higher with longer payback periods than the
original COBRA estimates since they include environmental restoration
costs. Without these added costs, the totals are close to what were
originally projected. While there are differences between actual and
projected savings due largely to unrealistic assumptions regarding land
sale revenues, the figures continue to support the original decisions.
Question. You indicate that environmental costs are significant.
What is the nature of these environmental problems on a facility that
all of the sudden makes uninhabitable after the military leaves, when
it was perfectly fine for habitation when the facility was in
operation? Are these environmental costs a portion of the costs over
the implementation period?
Answer. Applicable Federal and State environmental laws and
regulations require the Army to complete this environmental work prior
to transferring the property to non-federal purchasers. The Army has an
ongoing program to cleanup environmental contamination on many active
installations. Although we have very few imminent threats to human
health and the environment, there are levels of contamination, mostly
from past practices, that require remedial actions. The BRAC program
includes funding to support environmental restoration of the excess
property at closing and realigning installations.
The Army works with the local communities to clean properties to
support reuse plans that on occasion differ from the current military
use of the property while considering affordability of required cleanup
actions. Cleanup standards do change with some of the differences in
reuse, and negotiations with the local communities include
affordability of required cleanup in determining the reuse scenarios.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T09MY08.000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T09MY08.001
Question. Why are you funding environmental costs up-front? How
much per year is this unique financing costing taxpayers?
Answer. We are funding environmental costs up-front as required by
various applicable Federal and State environmental laws. The BRAC
account is the exclusive funding source for environmental restoration
of any property made excess to the needs of the Department of Defense
under BRAC. In addition, the law states that this restoration must be
carried out as soon as possible given the funds available for that
purpose. The Army is spending between $80 and $350 million per year for
environmental restoration at BRAC installations.
Question. Can I assume that savings for closing overseas bases will
give us a better return than for closing U.S. bases? Give me the same
analyses on these closures also, please.
Answer. The closure of overseas bases is funded from the Army's
operating accounts. As such, we do not have data on the actual cost to
implement these overseas actions. Generally, the infrastructure is
excess due to unit realignments to CONUS or unit eliminations in place.
These types of realignments do not require much construction at the
gaining installations and civilian personnel relocations are minimal.
Differences in these implementation costs differences do not change the
fact that there are significant operational savings generated by the
closure of both U.S. and overseas bases.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Reid
army guard facilities--carson city armory
Question. The Army National Guard is taking on many new missions
and responsibilities in addition to its more traditional domestic
roles. The Army National Guard has been an active participant in every
major American conflict, and has always performed admirably. In order
to maintain a strong National Guard Force, we must first supply the
Army National Guard with the tools and facilities necessary to do the
job.
In Carson City, Nevada, our Army National Guard is operating out of
woefully inadequate facilities. According to federal criteria, the
current Armory is undersized by 32,000 square feet. Additionally, the
roof is in such disrepair that it leaks every time it rains.
I understand that there are significant problems with many of Army
National Guard facilities throughout the nation. Does the Army have a
long-term modernization plan for the National Guard armories?
Answer. The Army does have a long-term modernization plan for the
National Guard Armories. In an attempt to fully delineate the cost of
modernizing and revitalizing the existing infrastructure of the Army
National Guard, a study was prepared outlining a 25-year long-term
plan. This study was based on the use of the individual State Long
Range Construction Programs which were consolidated into a prioritized
list. This list was developed using the following parameters: the
readiness priority of unit(s) which the project supports (40 percent);
adequacy of the existing facility (35 percent); and the state's
priority (25 percent). Armories are considered as part of the overall
readiness factor, along with aviation, maintenance, logistic, and
training facilities.
Question. Do you know where Carson City armory is on that list?
Answer. The Carson City armory is currently in the Army National
Guard's Future Years Defense Program for fiscal year 2003.
effects brac has had on the readiness
Question. Last Tuesday, Secretary Cohen announced that he intended
to seek two more rounds of base closings. The first round is proposed
to occur in 1999 with another one in the year 2000. In the last nine
years, the Army has closed nearly 100 bases in the United States, and
more than 600 bases overseas. In light of Secretary Cohen's comments on
Tuesday, do you know of any research being accomplished which addresses
the long-term effects of these base closures on the Army's readiness
posture?
Answer. No specific research has been undertaken to compare base
closures and readiness. However, base closures can improve readiness
since they result in considerable savings which can be reinvested in
readiness accounts.
Question. In 1996, the Army implemented the Business Occupancy
Program. As I understand it, the Business Occupancy Program was
initiated to incentivise the Army housing program and was intended to
ensure more effective and efficiently managed occupancy rates. Can you
expand on the progress and the success of this program? Will the
Business Occupancy Program in anyway change the long-term need for
additional or rejuvenated military family housing?
Answer. The Business Occupancy Program presently covers the entire
Army-owned family housing inventory. The Business Occupancy Program
achieved its goal to increase the family housing in occupancy rate by 2
percent in fiscal year 1996 and is on track to meet the goal of another
1 percent increase in fiscal year 1997.
The Business Occupancy Program will not affect the long-term need
for family housing. The Business Occupancy Program is used as a means
of distributing annually appropriated funds for family housing
operation and maintenance. It is not a factor in determining either the
need for family housing or the funding necessary for renovating
housing.
Question. In 1996 the Defense Authorization Act provided new
authorities under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. I
understand that as a result of this initiative the Army now has fifteen
housing projects under development which will privatize part of the
Army's housing inventory. When do you anticipate that you will be able
to first move families into these units? Do you plan on expanding these
efforts to further privatize the management of Army housing?
Answer. The Army expects to award the first privatization project
at Fort Carson this summer. The project involves the construction of
840 new units and the revitalization of the 1,824 existing units.
Occupancy of the 840 new units is planned over a four-year period with
the first completed units expected to come on line early 1999. All of
the existing, 1,824 units will be revitalized within five years.
The Army's current objective is to pursue privatizing all U.S.
family housing over the next several years.
parking ramp modernization
Question. I have seen a study which stated that 51 percent of the
Army National Guard parking ramps are inadequate in size or condition.
Contributing factors to the untimely deterioration of these ramps
include a modernized fleet, aging asphalt, and deferred ramp
maintenance. Now that the Army National Guard is getting newer more
advanced aircraft; parking locations, pavement bearing capacities, and
ramp clearances will need to be increased. This is a long term problem
which cannot be corrected in the 11th hour.
Is there a mechanism in place, sort of a parking ramp modernization
panel, which is addressing the inadequacies of the Army National
Guard's parking facilities?
Answer. The Army National Guard is addressing the issue as a matter
of special emphasis through regular aviation staff channels and its
aviation advisory council. These groups have identified 62 aircraft
parking ramp maintenance and repair construction projects with a cost
of $50.7 million and 14 additional projects for which cost estimates
have not yet been determined. The Army National Guard has made such
projects a priority item for the use of fiscal year 1997 Quality of
Life Enhancement-Defense funds. However, a number of these projects
have not been executed because they require a State matching share.
Question. Is there a strategic plan for the future that is
prioritizing ramp construction, renovation, and repair projects based
on risk analysis and cost effectiveness for maintenance and repair?
Answer. The Army National Guard aviation staff has proposed a
parking ramp modernization program that addresses the following:
conducting engineering surveys of ramp conditions to identify and
prioritize construction or repair needs based on risk analysis and cost
effectiveness; providing construction funding for projects currently
designed, projects programmed to correct urgent safety deficiencies,
and in support of priority units; and establishing a phased schedule
for construction, or repair and maintenance, based on engineering
survey data and cost effectiveness. Projects identified in this program
will compete for operations and maintenance or military construction
funding, as appropriate, through established prioritization processes.
The ability of these projects to compete will depend on the readiness
priority of the supported units, the adequacy of the existing ramps,
and individual State priorities. Repair projects will also require a 25
percent State matching share.
Defense Agencies
U.S. Special Operations Command
STATEMENT OF GARY W. ROBINSON, COMMAND ENGINEER
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Services Operations and
Readiness
STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. ROBERT G. CLAYPOOL, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (HEALTH
SERVICES OPERATIONS AND READINESS)
Defense Logistics Agency
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK N. BAILLIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Defense Finance and Accounting Service
STATEMENT OF BRUCE M. CARNES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Senator Burns. We will now hear from the second panel,
representing the Defense agencies this morning. We appreciate
all the folks. We have Mr. Gary Robinson, who is U.S. Special
Operations Command; Brig. Gen. Robert Claypool, Defense Medical
Facility Office; Fred Baillie, the Defense Logistics Agency;
and Bruce Carnes, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
We welcome and appreciate you being here today, and we look
forward to hearing your testimony. I think it will provide the
subcommittee an overview on your respective agencies' proposed
1998 budget. I ask again if your statements could be shortened
up. Your full statement will be included in the record for
everybody. So I ask you to keep those statements a little bit
on the short side.
We have a vote coming up or scheduled for 10:30, and we
will try to get as much done here as we possibly can.
Mr. Robinson, if we could hear from you and if you would
proceed, please. Thank you.
statement of gary w. robinson
Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman, members of
the committee, I am pleased to discuss the U.S. Special
Operations Command 1998 military----
Senator Burns. You might want to pull that microphone a
little closer to you. Thank you.
Mr. Robinson [continuing]. The fiscal year 1998 military
construction budget request. Our Milcon program has a direct
positive impact on our training and operational capabilities.
The highly specialized skills and equipment required to
successfully execute a full spectrum of special operations
missions also demand a modern array of operations, training,
maintenance and storage facilities.
The current program is planned to provide facilities that
will improve this force capability, increase the readiness of
complex weapons systems, and support our diverse training
needs.
Our Milcon budget request for fiscal year 1998 is $29.8
million for seven major construction projects, plus our
required unspecified minor construction and planning and design
funds.
prepared statement
This committee's support in prior years has greatly
improved our operations capability. We look forward to working
with your committee to acquire facilities needed by USSOCOM to
perform our missions and ensure we have a fully trained and
capable force in the future.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary W. Robinson
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to present
the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) fiscal year 1998
Military Construction (MILCON) submittal. Our MILCON program has a
direct, positive impact on our training and operational capabilities.
The highly specialized skills and equipment required to successfully
execute the full spectrum of special operations missions also demand a
modern array of operations, training, maintenance and storage
facilities.
purpose
The long term goal of the USSOCOM facilities program, of which
MILCON is one part, is to have all units and individuals working and
living in adequate facilities in order to maximize training and
operations capabilities. Facilities requirements are generated by the
need to support new weapons systems, force structure, and missions or
by the need to modernize or replace inadequate facilities. The current
program is planned to provide facilities that will improve force
capability, increase the readiness of complex weapons systems, and
support diverse training needs. In particular, the program provides
facilities to support new special operations systems, such as the Mark
V Special Operations Craft and the AC-130U (Gunship). It also provides
facilities for the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment where no
facilities exist and replaces substandard facilities for the 75th
Ranger Regiment. These facilities will accommodate an improved and
expanded special operations forces (SOF) capability. All of the
individual construction requests are part of a component master
construction plan. Component MILCON projects are integrated at the
USSOCOM level to ensure that the most needed projects are constructed
at the right place, on time, and with the highest return on investment.
Your support in prior years has aided immeasurably in improving our
operations capability. We look forward to working with your committee
to acquire facilities needed by USSOCOM to perform its mission and
ensure we have a fully trained and capable force in the future.
milcon program
The seven military construction projects in this program include
two projects for the Air Force Special Operations Command, three for
the Army Special Operations Command, one for the Naval Special Warfare
Command and one for the Joint Special Operations Command. Included in
the seven are two projects totaling $3.05 million designed to improve
the resistance of our facilities against terrorist attack. Our MILCON
budget request for fiscal year 1998 totals $37.6 million: $29.8 million
for major construction, $3.7 million for unspecified minor
construction, and $4.1 million for planning and design. Approximately
45 percent of the construction supports new mission requirements, and
55 percent support current mission requirements. This budget request
recognizes the need to balance construction requirements against
acquisition programs and the high state of readiness required of all
special operations forces.
Following is a brief description of each of the seven projects
listed by state:
Waterfront operations support facility NAS North Island, CA--$7.4
million
This project constructs a new building to house operations,
warehouse, maintenance/repair, armory and administrative requirements
for the new Mark V Special Operations Craft. The Mark V provides a
medium range insertion and extraction capability for Special Operations
personnel in a low to medium threat environment. There are currently no
facilities to accommodate this new program.
Squadron operations/AMU, AC-130 Hurlburt Field, FL--$6.1 million
Construction provides a squadron operations facility and aircraft
maintenance unit for thirteen AC-130U model Gunships and 551 personnel.
This facility provides space for planning and briefing combat crews and
for directing flight and maintenance operations. The commander and his
staff require administrative space to plan and conduct mission
briefings and related command activities. Space to maintain, store and
issue flying clothing and maintenance equipment is also required. The
squadron is currently accommodated in temporary leased modular
facilities pending construction of this project.
Perimeter fence/vehicle barrier system Hurlburt Field, FL--$2.45
million
This project will provide a security fence around the flightline
and upgrade the existing boundary fence. A concrete ditch will prevent
vehicle entry to the airfield to prevent access to combat aircraft
aprons except at authorized locations. Pipe bollards and movable
concrete barriers will channelize and slow traffic at base entry gates.
Battalion and company operations facility Fort Benning, GA--$9.81
million
Construct a battalion command and control facility with classrooms,
company operations and administrative facilities for the 3rd Battalion,
75th Ranger Regiment. This battalion occupies Korean War era
deteriorated barracks buildings that are inadequate for battalion
operations. The facility layout is inefficient and impedes smooth
synchronized operations. The facilities' heating, ventilation and air
conditioning systems are inadequate and failing. Soldiers' workplace
quality of life is substandard. This project will provide a
consolidated, permanent, adequate command control facility capable of
supporting sophisticated intelligence and communications systems.
Company operations facility Hunter Army Airfield, GA--$2.5 million
This project will provide a permanent adequate facility to support
the operations, administration, and supply functions for the
headquarters, two flight companies and a maintenance company of the 3rd
Battalion of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment.
Requirements include company operations and briefing functions, company
supply, NBC personnel equipment area, arms room, storage for individual
equipment and communications work areas. The unit currently uses space
within the aircraft maintenance hangar. Functions that would normally
occupy hangar space are located in WWII wood buildings remote from
their aircraft maintenance responsibilities. This dispersion and
improper use of maintenance space causes inefficiencies and impedes
smooth and synchronized operations.
Electronics maintenance facility Fort Bragg, NC--$1.0 million
Constructs an electronics maintenance facility to support mission
needs. This project is required to provide permanent and adequate space
to receive, maintain and issue multi-million dollar electronic systems
and equipment. The new facility will provide proper climate control and
security. Currently, the electronics maintenance functions are being
conducted in two 2,400 square foot temporary metal buildings. These
facilities lack adequate power, proper security and environmental
controls.
Security upgrades Fort Bragg, NC--$0.5 million
Project will install mylar window film (shatter protection) on
various facilities. Mylar window film is designed to minimize the
impact of flying glass and debris in the event of a terrorist attack.
Facilities included in this project generally house 150 to 450 military
and civilian employees and are located close to uncontrolled high
volume traffic areas and parking lots. Many of the Command's facilities
were constructed and sited prior to the establishment of government-
wide standards for security. As a result, these facilities have minimal
setback and are located on or near uncontrolled high volume vehicle
traffic areas. Since Fort Bragg is an ``open installation,'' facilities
are extremely vulnerable to random terrorists acts. Installation of
mylar window film will provide a quick method to minimize injury and
loss of life in the event of an attack.
summary
Our proposed fiscal year 1998 MILCON budget for facility
investments will significantly improve the operational and training
capability of special operations forces. Approval of this program is
essential to ensure the continued development of our nation's Special
Operations Forces.
STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. ROBERT G. CLAYPOOL
Senator Burns. General Robert Claypool, Defense Medical
Facility Office.
General Claypool. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to
be here before this committee and I would like to state that if
I develop a cough during the middle of my testimony I indulge
your apologies. I feel quite well, but it is an occupational
hazard being a grandfather, so I get these coughing spells.
Senator Burns. I was going to get even with you. I have a
daughter graduating medical school this June. I was going to
send her to the Army and get even with you. [Laughter.]
General Claypool. On behalf of Dr. Martin, the Acting
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, I thank you
for this opportunity. I would like to address the composition
of our fiscal year 1998 program.
Fiscal year 1998 contains a budget request for 14 projects,
unspecified construction, planning and design, for a total
appropriation request of $156.425 million.
We are requesting $20 million for the last phase of the
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research at Forest Glen, MD. This
project was fully authorized in previous budget submissions.
And a project at Fort Detrick, MD, for $4,650,000, funded
with base realignment and closure funds to accommodate the Fort
Detrick beneficiaries and mitigate the impact of migration from
beneficiaries from the closure of Fort Ritchie. The BRAC
portion of this project is an additional $650,000.
My testimony includes, and at the request of your
instruction, sir, I will keep it short, and the testimony will
include the six clinics that we are submitting for this year, a
total of six clinics, and a Naval Undersea Medical Institute
addition/alteration at New London, CT, which will renovate the
current facility into an adequate and properly configured
training facility to present the curriculum in a centralized
facility that provides the kind of learning environment that is
necessary.
The environmental and preventive medicine unit at San Diego
Naval Air Station will consolidate operations from the North
Island and Mare Island units into San Diego.
We are also requesting $3 million for a blood donor center
at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas and this new blood donor
center is necessary to meet the increasing demand for blood
products from Wilford Hall Medical Center, the Audie L. Murphy
VA, and the Armed Forces Whole Blood Program.
The Department intends to improve the clinical capability
of 17 small inpatient facilities by reengineering from ones
that provide low concentrations of inpatient care to facilities
that provide improved access to ambulatory care for our
beneficiaries and ensure that care is rendered of the highest
quality.
Two ambulatory health care centers are being rightsized
from hospitals. The first is McGuire Air Force Base, the second
is the ambulatory health care center at Robins Air Force Base
in Georgia.
We are also requesting $2,750,000 for a composite medical
facility alteration at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to
alleviate overcrowding and inefficiencies, and we also have a
request for unspecified minor construction.
There are two projects we are requesting authorization for
only, sir. We are not seeking appropriation for an aeromedical
clinic at Andersen Air Force Base and for an occupational
health clinic at Tinker AFB, OK. We have submitted language to
utilize the dollars from the BRAC-directed cancellation of a
fiscal year 1995 funded McClellan project, which was a life
safety upgrade project, and we intend to use those dollars to
finance the Andersen and Tinker projects. We ask for your
support on this action.
For fiscal year 1999, we are asking for $256,959,000 for 24
projects, as well as $12 million for unspecified minor
construction and $18.8 million for planning and design.
A few of the details include funding of $34,954,000 for the
final phase of the Portsmouth Naval Hospital and, as I think
you are aware, sir, the draft GAO report which had delayed this
for 1 year has suggested and supported fully renovating
building 215 as a practical option.
One of our projects is conjunctively funded with base
realignment and closure funds. The alteration at Bremerton
Naval Hospital modifies a facility built in 1979. Our request
for construction is $30 million, and the BRAC portion of this
at an additional $11 million has been canceled due to lack of
projected workload from homeporting.
We also request funds for two hospital addition/alteration
projects--Pensacola Naval Air Station Hospital in Florida for
$20,400,000 to construct an outpatient clinic; and the Royal
Air Force Lakenheath Hospital annex replacement to support the
RAF Lakenheath/RAF Mildenhall communities for $10 million. The
current annex is an old Quonset hut construction.
There are a total of 11 clinics included in the 1999 budget
request. One is at Moody AFB, GA, for $11 million; one at Fort
Stewart, GA, for $10,400,000; and two at Camp Pendleton Marine
Corps Base, CA. There is a fifth clinic at Barksdale Air Force
Base which will consolidate flight medicine, pediatrics, and
immunizations clinics.
The sixth clinic is a medical/dental clinic for Grand Forks
Air Force Base; the seventh clinic is an aerospace medical
clinic at Edwards Air Force Base, and the eighth clinic is a
clinic replacement at McChord Air Force Base in Washington to
provide outpatient emergency care to flight crews and other
military personnel.
The ninth clinic is a health clinic addition at Carlisle,
PA; the tenth is an occupational health clinic and
bioenvironmental engineering laboratory facility at Wright-
Patterson AFB, OH. And the last clinic is an $11 million
primary care clinic to provide primary care in the COSCOM area
at Fort Hood.
We are also requesting three warehouse projects, to include
the 44th Medical Brigade war reserve materiel warehouse at Fort
Bragg, a second one in Yongsan, Korea, and a third war
readiness materiel warehouse at Holloman Air Force Base.
Our program contains a blood donor center at Fort Hood to
support the armed services blood program there. Our program
also includes a physiological support division addition/
alteration project at Beale AFB, CA.
We are requesting three instruction facilities in 1999. The
first is the medical applied instruction facility at Fort Sam
Houston at a cost of $23 million to renovate the old beach
pavilion. A second is an aviation physiological training
facility at Kanoehe Marine Corps Station in Hawaii. And the
third is an addition at Great Lakes Naval Station for $7
million.
The last request is $700,000 for a bioenvironmental
engineering facility replacement at Kessler Air Force Base.
prepared statement
This concludes my overview of and a condensed version of my
statement and I thank you for the opportunity to present our
budget and welcome any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brig. Gen. Robert G. Claypool
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Brigadier General Robert G. Claypool,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) for Health
Services Operations and Readiness. I would like to submit a written
statement for the record and open with some brief remarks.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of Dr.
Edward Martin, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs (AASD(HA)), I thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of Defense's fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 Medical
Military Construction Program budget request. First I would like to
address the composition of our fiscal year 1998 program.
fiscal year 1998
Fiscal year 1998 contains a budget request for 14 projects,
Unspecified Minor Construction, and Planning and Design funds for a
total appropriation request of $156,425,000.
We are requesting $20,000,000 for the last phase of the Walter Reed
Army Institute of Research at Forest Glen, Maryland. This project was
fully authorized in previous budget submissions. The project at Fort
Detrick, Maryland for $4,650,000 is conjunctively funded with Base
Realignment and Closure funds (BRAC) to provide a Health/Dental Clinic
replacement for the Fort Detrick beneficiaries and mitigate the impact
of migration of beneficiaries resulting from the closure of Fort
Ritchie. The BRAC portion of this project is an additional $650,000.
Six additional clinics are included in our fiscal year 1998
request. The Troop Medical Clinic at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, at a cost
of $13,600,000 will consolidate six old, widely disbursed, Korean War
vintage clinics.
The second clinic is a Medical/Dental clinic located at Everett
Naval Station, Washington that will replace seven temporary portable
modular facilities put in place in 1994 to support the new homeport
mission which moved from the Sand Point Base in fiscal year 1994. The
cost for this replacement project is $7,500,000.
The third clinic is a Medical Clinic Addition for the Naval
Aerospace Medical Institute (NAMI), at Pensacola Naval Air Station,
Florida at a cost of $2,750,000. It will provide clinical and training
space.
The fourth clinic is a Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement at
Quantico Marine Corps Base, Virginia at a cost of $19,000,000. It will
provide primary medical/dental care to the eligible beneficiary
population in and around Marine Corps Base, Quantico.
The fifth clinic is an outpatient Clinic Addition to the existing
clinic adjacent to the main hospital at Hill Air Force Base, Utah for
$3,100,000. It will replace a Flight Medicine Clinic currently housed
in a modular building.
Our last clinic in this program is a Dental Clinic Replacement at
Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. The clinic will replace an old,
deteriorating and obsolete facility that is functionally inadequate and
undersized for the delivery of modern dental care. We are seeking
$3,000,000 for this facility.
The Naval Undersea Medical Institute Addition/Alteration, at Naval
Sub Base New London, Connecticut will renovate the current facility
into an adequate and properly configured training facility to present
curriculum in a centralized facility that provides a learning
environment conducive to training officers and corpsmen in undersea
medicine and radiation health. We are requesting $2,300,000 for this
project.
The Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit Addition/Alteration
at San Diego Naval Air Station, California will consolidate operations
from the North Island and Mare Island Units into the San Diego unit.
The existing building will receive alterations and an addition at a
cost of $2,100,000.
We are requesting $3,000,000 for a Blood Donor Center at Lackland
Air Force Base, Texas. A new Blood Donor Center is required to meet the
increasing demand for blood products from Wilford Hall Medical Center,
Audie L. Murphy Veterans Hospital, and the Armed Forces Whole Blood
Program.
The Department intends to improve the clinical capability of 17
small inpatient facilities by re-engineering from ones that provide low
concentrations of inpatient care to facilities that provide improved
access to ambulatory care for our beneficiaries and ensure that care
rendered is of the highest quality. The goals of the initiative are to:
(1) Improve beneficiary access.--The most common beneficiary
complaint is inadequate access to ambulatory care. Staff and physical
plant currently used for inefficient inpatient care will be used to
significantly increase ambulatory capability.
(2) Maintain quality.--Low inpatient loads result in challenges for
providers to maintain skills.
(3) Efficient use of resources.--Small inpatient facilities are
inefficient users of resources due to the intensity of inpatient
staffing requirements and overhead.
(4) Maintain readiness.--The expansion beds provided by these
hospitals are excess to wartime requirements. Referral of some
inpatient work to military tertiary care facilities will provide
increased physician experience in the appropriate clinical setting that
will receive wartime casualties.
Two Ambulatory Health Care Centers being rightsized from hospitals
are requested in this program. The first is a replacement facility at
McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey for $35,217,000. The second is an
Ambulatory Health Care Center Addition/Alteration at Robins Air Force
Base, Georgia, for $19,000,000.
We are also requesting $2,750,000 for a Composite Medical Facility
Alteration at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio to alleviate
overcrowding and inefficiencies in providing medical services to the
Air Force Material Command and eligible beneficiaries of the base.
In addition to our specific line item projects, we are requesting
$7,958,000 for Unspecified Minor Construction and $10,500,000 for
planning and design efforts in our fiscal year 1998 program.
There are two projects for which we are requesting authorization
only. We are not seeking appropriation for an Aeromedical Clinic
Addition at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam for $3,700,000 and an
Occupational Health Clinic Replacement at Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma for $6,500,000. We have submitted language to utilize the
dollars from the BRAC directed cancellation of the fiscal year 1995
funded McClellan Air Force Base, California, Life Safety Upgrade
project to fund the Andersen and Tinker projects. I ask for your
support on this action.
fiscal year 1999
Our fiscal year 1999 request seeks $256,959,000 in appropriation
for 24 projects as well as $12,005,000 for Unspecified Minor
Construction and $18,800,000 for planning and design. I would like to
provide a few details on our projects in this year.
We seek funding of $34,954,000 for the final phase of the
Portsmouth Naval Hospital, Virginia project. Congress has appropriated
$316,400,000 to date for this project. This project requested no
funding in fiscal year 1998 due to an ongoing GAO study. We do not
anticipate any changes from the GAO study that will alter the planning
of this project. We continue to ask your support for this important
teaching hospital which serves the largest population in the Navy.
One of our projects is conjunctively funded with Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) funds. The Hospital Addition/Alteration project at
Bremerton Naval Hospital, Washington, modifies a facility built in
1979. Our request for this construction is $30,000,000. The BRAC
portion of this project is an additional $11,000,000.
We also request funds for two hospital addition/alteration projects
in fiscal year 1999. The Pensacola Naval Air Station, Florida Hospital
Addition/Alteration requires $20,400,000 to construct an Outpatient
Clinic addition and to renovate a major portion of the existing
hospital. Companion Operations and Maintenance projects will complete
the renovation. Royal Air Force (RAF) Lakenheath requires a Hospital
Annex Replacement to support the RAF Lakenheath/RAF Mildenhall
communities for $10,000,000. The current annex is a group of primarily
World War II era ``Quonset huts'' connected together with a common
corridor.
Eleven additional clinics are included in our fiscal year 1999
budget request. A CMF/Alteration and a Dental Clinic addition is
required at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia at a cost of $11,000,000.
Three Medical/Dental Clinic Replacements are requested, one at Fort
Stewart, Georgia, for $10,400,000, and two at Camp Pendleton Marine
Corps Base, California, Margarita and San Mateo for $3,050,000 each.
The fifth clinic, an addition/alteration is sought at Barksdale Air
Force Base, Louisiana. This clinic will consolidate the operations of
the Flight Medicine, Pediatrics, and Immunization clinics which are
located in separate buildings throughout the base. We ask $3,450,000
for this clinic.
The sixth clinic, a Medical/Dental Clinic Addition/Alteration is
required for Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota to provide an
adequate aeromedical service facility and a replacement dental clinic
for $5,500,000.
The seventh clinic, an Aerospace Medical Clinic Addition/Alteration
is required at Edwards Air Force Base, California to provide adequate
space for several Aerospace medical clinic functions: Flight Medicine,
Physical Exams, Public Health, Bioenvironmental Engineering, and
Optometry at a cost of $6,000,000.
The eighth clinic is a Clinic Replacement at McChord Air Force
Base, Washington to provide outpatient and emergency care to flight
crews, other military personnel, and eligible beneficiaries for a cost
of $17,500,000.
The ninth clinic is a Health Clinic Addition required at Carlisle
Barracks, Pennsylvania at a cost of $4,550,000 to expand the existing
health care clinic.
The tenth clinic is an Occupational Health Clinic/Bioenvironmental
Engineering Laboratory Replacement facility at Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, Ohio. We seek $3,600,000 for this facility.
The last clinic is an $11,000,000 Primary Care Clinic to provide
family practice health services to active duty personnel assigned to
the COSCOM area of Fort Hood, Texas and their eligible beneficiaries.
This project also consolidates functions from a troop medical clinic
which is located at Hood Army Airfield.
We are also requesting funding for three warehouse projects. The
first is a 44th Medical Brigade War Reserve Materiel Warehouse for
$6,500,000 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina to provide a consolidated
humidity controlled facility for storage of medical supplies and other
medical logistics operations.
The second is a Medical Supply Warehouse Replacement at Yongsan,
Korea for $2,800,000 to provide an adequate receiving, storage and
issuing facility with a climate controlled environment for the holding
of medical equipment and for equipment that requires technical review
by medical maintenance personnel prior to issuing to the customer.
The third is a War Readiness Material Warehouse at Holloman Air
Force Base, New Mexico at a cost of $1,250,000 to accommodate the
peacetime storage of propositioned medical war readiness material
resources.
Our program contains a Blood Donor Center at Fort Hood, Texas for
$3,100,000 to support the Armed Services Blood program to provide blood
components to military medical treatment facilities in the continental
United States, Panama, Hawaii, and Alaska.
The program includes a Physiological Support Division Addition/
Alteration project at Beale Air Force Base, California for $3,350,000
to modify a 30 year old facility to provide adequately sized and
properly configured space to meet the Aerospace Medicine Physiological
Support division requirements.
We are requesting three instruction facilities in fiscal year 1999.
The first is the Medical Applied Instruction Facility Alteration
project at Fort Sam Houston, Texas at a cost of $23,100,000. This
project is required to provide consolidated training facilities for the
Army Medical Department Center and School (AMEDDC&S) to train Army,
Navy, Air Force, Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, National Guard, and
foreign national students.
The second project is an Aviation Physiological Training Facility
at Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station, Hawaii for $3,800,000 required to
meet all of the aviation physiological training needs of the Department
of Defense aviation personnel in the mid-Pacific.
The third project is the Hospitalman ``A'' School Addition at Great
Lakes Naval Station, Illinois for $7,100,000. This project will provide
adequate and properly configured training facilities to present
curricula in a centralized facility that provides a learning
environment conducive to Navy Hospitalman ``A'' School training in one
location.
The last request is $700,000 for an Bioenvironmental Engineering
Facility Replacement at Keesler Air Force Base, Louisiana to
consolidate all of the Bioenvironmental Engineering functions necessary
to support the industrial function of the base.
conclusion
This concludes my overview statement of the fiscal year 1998-99
medical military construction budget request. The programs stand as a
testament to our commitment to provide quality medical care to the men
and women of our Armed Forces and to maintain our medical readiness. I
thank you for the opportunity to present our budget and I welcome your
questions on any aspect of the budget before you now.
statement of frederick n. baillie
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, General Claypool.
The Executive Director of the Defense Logistics Agency,
Frederick Baillie. You know, I want to add a little note here.
There were some of us who really did not appreciate what
logistics do if you were not here during the time of Desert
Shield and Storm. I really appreciate, because this is one
little agency that sits down there at the end of the corridor
and does not get much acclaim. But I want to sincerely thank
you for what you do, and I want you to know that this committee
takes your work very seriously because you are a key. We do not
do anything until logistics has been run properly.
So I want to just say that publicly on the work that you do
and how important you are. Thank you for coming this morning.
Mr. Baillie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Senator
Murray, the Defense Logistics Agency's fiscal year 1998
military construction request is $141.8 million for 12
projects.
Our program this year continues the tasks started in fiscal
year 1996 of integrating the management of bulk petroleum for
the Department of Defense. Seven of the projects we are
requesting are fuel related and support the services'
operational requirements. These projects include fuel receipt
and storage facilities at several military installations as
well as a hydrant fuel system project to support strategic
mobility.
The projects we are proposing will increase the mission
responsiveness, eliminate environmental hazards, and improve
health, safety, and the quality of working conditions at our
activities. A large portion of this request, 93 percent, to be
exact, is for projects to replace old and deteriorated
facilities. At critical military installations we propose to
replace fuel storage tanks and piping systems that are more
than 40 years old, cannot meet current operational
requirements. Due to their condition, these facilities also
pose a serious environmental hazard.
Our program also includes the second phase of a hydrant
fuel system project to improve the Department of Defense's
strategic inroute fueling capability.
At two of our most active distribution depots we plan to
replace inefficient World War I-era warehouses with automated
warehouses to consolidate operations and improve productivity.
We will also modify an existing warehouse to refurbish gas
cylinders to recover and recycle ozone-depleting substances
within the Department.
Further, we are continuing our program to construct
hazardous waste storage facilities that conform with the
requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Finally, we are requesting funds to build a child
development center at our colocated supply center and depot in
Richmond, VA.
prepared statement
In summary, our military construction request reflects our
efforts to support military readiness, protect the environment,
and provide safe and healthful working conditions for our
military and civilian work force. We believe these are worthy
investments with significant benefits.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral statement. Thank you
for asking me to appear today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frederick N. Baillie
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee: I am Frederick N.
Baillie, Executive Director of Business Management, Materiel Management
business area at the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). I am pleased to
have the opportunity to provide information about DLA's fiscal year
1998 Military Construction request.
military construction request
Our total Military Construction request for fiscal year 1998 is
$141,831,000. The program consists of 12 projects that will increase
mission responsiveness, eliminate environmental hazards, and improve
facility readiness at our activities in support of the Agency's
missions. This request includes:
--$78.8 million for replacing or constructing additional fuel storage
tanks, fuel unloading facilities, direct refueling systems, and
fuel pipelines at six Air Force and Navy bases.
--$14.4 million for completing the final phase of a project to
replace a deteriorated, obsolete hydrant fuel system at a
critical Air Force base.
--$35.2 million for replacing two deteriorated World War I-era
warehouses with an addition to an existing distribution center
at the DLA distribution depot in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania,
and the construction of one high-bay general purpose warehouse
at the DLA distribution depot in Norfolk, Virginia. The request
also includes the conversion of an existing warehouse for
processing cylinders for recycled ozone depleting substances at
our distribution depot in Richmond, Virginia.
--$2.1 million for constructing a new child development center at
DLA's Defense Supply Center, Richmond, Virginia.
--$11.3 million for constructing conforming storage facilities for
the disposal of DOD generated hazardous waste at various DLA
sites.
new fuel mission responsibilities
In fiscal year 1996, DLA assumed new responsibilities for
programming fuel-related MILCON projects for bulk and intermediate fuel
storage and hydrant fuel systems at the Services' installations. The
Office of the Secretary of Defense approved this responsibility
transfer from the Services in fiscal year 1992 in its Plan for the
Integrated Management of Bulk Petroleum. In carrying out this
responsibility, we are requesting approval of seven fuel-related
projects at $93.2 million, which is 66 percent of our total program
request. Four of these projects (at Elmendorf AFB, AK; Andersen AFB,
Guam; Westover Air Reserve Base, MA; and, Moron Air Base, Spain) are
priorities of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since the projects will provide
critical fuels infrastructure to support strategic en route mobility.
The remaining three projects (at NAS Jacksonville, FL; Truax Field, WI;
and Craney Island, VA) are necessary to meet environmental compliance
and operational requirements.
Fuel Receipt and Storage Facilities
Our proposed investment of $78.7 million is to replace or add fuel
storage, distribution, and piping systems at six locations. These
projects will overcome shortfalls affecting support of the bases'
missions and eliminate potential environmental liabilities.
At Elmendorf AFB, AK, we will construct a $21.7 million fuel
storage facility. It will replace existing on-base bulk fuel storage
tanks that have failed or are failing due to their age and mechanical
condition. Recent tank failures account for a loss of 63 percent of the
base's storage capacity, and have forced the Agency to store some of
the base's critical war-reserve fuel stock at other locations in the
northwest Pacific. This new facility will allow the base to consolidate
its war-reserve and peacetime fuel stocks in storage tanks that comply
with state and Federal environmental regulations. Six aboveground
storage tanks will be demolished as part of this project.
At Andersen AFB, Guam, we will replace the two existing 200
millimeter (mm) aboveground crosscountry pipelines with one underground
250 mm pipeline for $16 million to meet peacetime and contingency
operations. Currently, the base receives its entire supply of jet fuel
from one of these two existing pipelines, which are more than 40 years
old and are severely corroded. One pipeline has been removed from
service due to severe deterioration. The new pipeline and improvements
to the main transfer pumping station are necessary to deliver fuel at
the required rate to support Andersen AFB and to protect the
environment from fuel contamination caused by a potential rupture of
the existing pipeline. The new pipeline will include features to
protect it from the harsh environment and will employ a leak detection
system. The existing pipelines will be demolished.
A $4.7 million project at Westover Air Reserve Base, MA, will
provide for the construction of a jet fuel storage complex to support
operations of assigned C-5A aircraft and other transient aircraft.
Westover lacks onbase bulk fuel storage to support strategic en route
mobility operations. Commercial storage and pipeline systems are too
small to meet fuel requirements during contingencies.
At Craney Island, VA, we will provide aboveground fuel storage to
replace deteriorated underground bulk storage tanks that have been in
service for more than 50 years. Our proposed $22.1 million replacement
project will provide the tanks, spill containment structures, piping,
and mechanical controls to meet current environmental standards and
reduce the potential for costly fuelspill cleanups. The project
includes the decommissioning of 17 existing underground tanks.
At Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, FL, we will replace 11 old,
deteriorated underground storage tanks (UST) with three new aboveground
storage tanks. This $9.8 million project will fulfill an environmental
compliance consent agreement with the State of Florida to take these 40
year old UST's out of service by December 31, 2000.
At Truax Field, WI, we propose a $4.5 million project to construct
a jet fuel storage complex to replace the existing 40 year old
underground storage tanks. This project is necessary to meet
environmental compliance requirements. The facility supports assigned
units of the Wisconsin Air National Guard. The existing facility does
not meet safety regulations, environmental statutes, or operational
requirements, and is located in an environmentally contaminated area
that must be remediated.
Hydrant Fuel Systems
We propose to complete the final phase of the replacement of the
hydrant fuel systems at Moron Air Base, Spain. Phase 1 of this project
was approved in the DLA fiscal year 1997 MILCON program for $13
million. The existing system, built in the 1950's, is technologically
obsolete and incapable of meeting current wide-bodied aircraft
refueling requirements. Because this system is obsolete, repair parts
are no longer available; they must be individually fabricated or
salvaged from other inoperable systems. The $14.4 million project
provides a new hydrant fuel system, storage tanks, and supporting
facilities constructed to current standards. This project is not
eligible at this time for NATO Security Investment Program funding.
distribution and supply center investments
Distribution Depots
We propose to invest $35.2 million to replace or modify warehouse
facilities at three locations. These projects will eliminate
inefficiencies with the use of aging low-bay facilities by allowing us
to consolidate and mechanize storage and distribution.
At the Defense Distribution Depot in New Cumberland, PA, we propose
a $15.5 million addition to DLA's Eastern Distribution Center. This
high-bay facility will provide additional pallet rack storage to
enhance the automated throughput capabilities of one of DLA's primary
distribution sites for the storage of highly active stock. The
warehouse addition of 6,850 square meters (73,733 square feet) replaces
one World War I-era warehouse totaling more than 18,900 square meters
(203,500 square feet). This wooden warehouse, now storing some of this
fast moving stock, will be demolished as part of this project.
A new general purpose warehouse will replace a deteriorated
warehouse built in 1939 at the Defense Distribution Depot in Norfolk,
VA. The proposed $16.6 million warehouse will have pier-side
accessibility for the receipt, storage, packaging, and distribution of
nonperishable materiel to ships berthed at the Norfolk Naval Base. This
project supports DLA's plan to consolidate depot storage and vacate by
fiscal year 2001 more than 260,000 square meters (2.8 million square
feet) of storage space in aging warehouses remotely located from the
depot's primary customers at the pier.
At the Defense Distribution Depot in Richmond, VA, we propose to
convert an existing warehouse to a processing center for the
refurbishment of steel gas cylinders and the recycling of ozone
depleting substances (ODS). This facility will provide clean,
refurbished cylinders to the Services to recover ODS from worldwide DOD
locations and will directly support the recycling of these substances
within the Department. This depot is the Department's storage site for
the reserve of this material that is critical to the national defense.
Supply Centers
Our Child Development Center project will provide a facility for 99
children at the Defense Supply Center, Richmond, VA (DSCR), and the
collocated Defense Distribution Depot Richmond. There are no facilities
on or near DSCR that can be used to satisfy the needs of the 3,400
military and civilian employees at this location. The estimated cost of
this center is $2.1 million.
Conforming Storage
Since 1980, DOD has tasked DLA with disposing hazardous waste
generated by DOD components. Before disposal, DLA must store this
hazardous waste in conformance with federal and state environmental
regulations implementing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). In fiscal year 1998 we are requesting $11.3 million to build
conforming storage facilities at several of our Defense Reutilization
and Marketing Offices to comply with these environmental requirements.
We will proceed with those projects that receive RCRA permits from
state regulators--a process that is lengthy and somewhat unpredictable.
Consequently, as in prior years, we are requesting single-line-item
funding for this program so that we may award projects as we receive
these permits. We will continue to notify the appropriate committees
before construction of each project.
summary
DLA's Military Construction request reflects our efforts to support
military readiness, protect the environment, and provide safe working
conditions for our military and civilian work force. Seven of the 12
projects provide vital fuel facilities to support the Services. The
remaining five are needed to meet the Agency's other mission
requirements and provide quality of life facilities to sustain
operations into the 21st Century. I believe these are worthy
investments with significant benefits.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present our fiscal
year 1998 requirements.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE M. CARNES
Senator Burns. Thank you, thank you.
Bruce Carnes, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
Whatever accounting you use is foreign to me. [Laughter.]
If there is one thing in this Government, it is the
accounting system. Thank you for coming this morning.
Mr. Carnes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murray. Thank
you for the opportunity to talk about the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service [DFAS] request for fiscal year 1998 Milcon
funds.
Senator, we are asking for funds for four projects totaling
$55 million. One of the projects is for the final tranche of
funds to complete our Columbus center. We have five major
centers. This funding, $24 million, will complete the
construction of that building.
In addition, we are asking for approximately $31 million
spread across three operating locations, in essence regional
offices for DFAS.
I will just add one more word on that, if I could, Mr.
Chairman. We are closing 330 field level installation-based
finance and accounting offices. We have closed two-thirds of
those. By the end of this year we will have closed all but
about 25 of those, and will complete closing all of them within
the next 18 months.
prepared statement
We are locating them in these regional operating locations,
21 of which have been designated by the Deputy Secretary of
Defense. When we finish that, we will save $120 million per
year in operating costs. That is an annual savings in operating
costs that offsets the cost of the renovation of some of these
regional offices that we are going into.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I look
forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce M. Carnes
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Military Construction
requirements for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for
fiscal year 1998.
The military construction request for the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 1998 includes $55.0 million for the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service. Of this, $23.9 million supports Phase III (the
final phase) of the construction of the Columbus Center. The renovation
of three other Department of Defense facilities into adequate
administrative facilities for finance and accounting operations will
cost $29.7 million, and the remaining $1.4 million will be used for
planning and design.
The Columbus Center project, collocated with the Defense Supply
Center, Columbus, is under construction. When it is complete, the
building will provide a multi-story 580,000 square-foot administrative
facility with space for 3,200 people. DFAS Columbus Center employees
will provide contract pay, travel pay, commercial vendor pay,
installation accounting, and financial systems design support to the
Department of Defense. The move to the new facility is scheduled to
begin in June 1999, and the consolidation of DFAS into the facility
should be completed by the end of fiscal year 1999.
The other three projects we request funding for are renovations to
existing buildings. These buildings are up to 65 years old; one is
currently configured as a training facility, one is a warehouse, and
one is the location for Fleet Electronic Systems equipment. Renovation
of these facilities will provide modern, efficient workplaces which
will accommodate current and emerging technologies such as electronic
commerce/electronic data interchange and electronic data management.
Renovations at all sites include the installation of communications
lines, increased electrical capacity, and improved heating, air
conditioning and ventilation systems, and would bring the buildings
into compliance with current building codes. The interior design of the
facilities emphasizes an open space concept to the greatest extent
possible.
This concludes my formal remarks. I have provided a copy of my
briefing slides for the record and am prepared to respond to any
question that you might have concerning these projects.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Finance and Accounting Service Fiscal Year 1998-99 Military
Construction Program
DFAS inherit--total
6 Centers
327 Activities
30,500 Employees
In fiscal year 2001
5 Centers
19 Operating locations
21,500 Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1998 DFAS Milcon Program
[In millions of dollars]
Columbus, OH...................................................... 23.9
Honolulu, HI...................................................... 10.0
Memphis, TN....................................................... 6.9
Norfolk, VA....................................................... 12.8
Planning and Design............................................... 1.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 55.0
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus Center Project--Ohio
Office and support space for Columbus Center and Financial Systems
Activity--Columbus
Replaces 8 buildings and 5 trailers on 2 installations (including
Air Force Plant # 85, 50 year old aircraft manufacturing facility)
48,800 square meters
Co-located with Defense Supply Center Columbus
Funded over 3 years
Total Cost--$80.7 million
Fiscal year 1998--Final phase of $23.9 million
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honolulu Operating Location, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
OPLOC
9 DAO's
304 Personnel
Vendor pay, disbursing, accounting and travel functions
Building 77, Ford Island
2 stories
9,414 SM (101 KSF)
Constructed prior to WWII
Configured for Fleet Electronic Systems Equipment
35 percent Design Complete
$10.0M
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Memphis Operating Location, Millington Navel Air Station, Tennessee
OPLOC
26 Corps of Engineers Finance and Accounting Offices
400 Personnel
Vendor pay, disbursing and accounting functions
Building 787
1 story
10,223 SM (110 KSF)
Configured as special purpose training space
35 percent design complete
$6.9M
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Operating Location, Cinclantfleet, Norfolk, Virginia
OPLOC
12 DAO's
515 Personnel
Vendor pay, disbursing, accounting and travel functions
Building Z133
5 stories, renovate 4 floors (2\1/2\ DFAS, 1\1/2\ Navy)
12,949 SM (139 KSF)
Conjunctively funded project with Navy
Configured as warehouse
Constructed in 1940's
35 percent Design Complete
$18.9M (DFAS $12.8M, Navy $6.1M)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1999 DFAS Milcon Program
[In millions of dollars]
Seaside, CA....................................................... 20.0
Pensacola, FL..................................................... 17.7
Lexington, KY..................................................... 8.6
Planning and Design............................................... 2.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 48.5
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seaside Operating Location, Fort Ord, California
OPLOC
3 DAO's
105 Personnel
Vendor pay, accounting and travel functions
Defense Manpower Data Center
400 Personnel
Manpower, personnel, training and financial analysis
Building 4385
8 stories
13,521 SM (146 KSF)
Constructed in 1972, configured as hospital
Installation closed
$20.0M
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pensacola Operating Location, Pensacola Naval Air Station, Florida
OPLOC
7 DAO's
525 Personnel
Civilian pay, vendor pay, accounting and travel functions
Building 603
4 stories
12,077 SM (130 KSF)
Configured as administrative and warehouse space
Constructed late 1930's
$17.7M
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lexington Operating Location, Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity,
Kentucky
Building
1 story
12,367 SM (133 KSF)
Constructed in 1943
Configured as administrative space
Closed installation
35 percent design complete
$8.6M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Burns. Mr. Carnes, while we are fresh in that
conversation, it seems like we have been building on Columbus
forever, ever since I have been here anyway.
Mr. Carnes. Yes, sir.
movement of financial data
Senator Burns. Tell me, when you close these different
offices, that information has to get to you from our different
locations for processing in Columbus. In moving that
information, do you move that electronically, or is that done
hard copy, courier, or comail? How do you move that
information?
Mr. Carnes. We move it by a variety of means. Obviously, we
are trying to get it all done or as much of it done
electronically as we can. Because that means we will also be
able to reduce our staffing.
When we started that operation, it was all hard copy. We
had miles and miles of hard copy files--just almost impossible
to wrestle with. We are imaging some of those documents. We are
instituting electronic commerce so that we will have electronic
interchange of data between our customers and ourselves and
those organizations that we pay.
Senator Burns. When you move things electronically, are you
satisfied with the security of moving those documents?
Mr. Carnes. Yes; in fact, we think that the use of
electronic means is far superior to any other means not only
because it is cheaper but because it is more accurate and
because there are security provisions built into these systems
so that they are probably more secure. In fact, I feel certain
they are more secure than the present system of hard copy
documents.
Senator Burns. The reason I ask you that is because we are
going through quite a debate now on encryption and this type
thing and moving things electronically, and the information
that you move tells us as much about our military capabilities
as looking at a base or looking at hardware or anything else. I
just happen to believe that there are people who have an
analytical mind that can read finance records. Of course, they
are a lot smarter than I am, I tell you that.
Senator Murray.
medical/dental clinic, everett, wa
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few
questions for General Claypool.
In your testimony you referred to the medical/dental clinic
that is located at Everett Naval Station in Washington. I have
been to that several times recently, and I can really attest
personally to the need for this facility, so I am really
pleased that it is in your budget request.
But I do have a question about that. I have been told by
personnel on the ground that this facility is only going to be
available for active duty personnel, and I wanted to know if
that is true. If so, can you provide me with the justification
for the decision to exclude family members, particularly since
we have children on-site at the day care center there--children
and family members?
General Claypool. Senator, I will have to get back to you
for the record on that. I do not know. I made the comment that
at some places some of the troop medical clinics that we have
do take care of active duty service people and health clinics
take care of family members as well. That might be the reason
behind that, but the specifics I will have to provide.
[The information follows:]
The Station has limited space and the site itself is very small.
The Station is so small that full Navy Exchange, Commissary and BOQ are
off-site. From the earliest point of planning the Everett Homeport
(1990 or earlier), directions had come from the Commander Naval
Surface, Pacific and Commander Naval Base, Seattle that Everett would
provide active duty medical/dental needs and civilian occupational
health needs only. The Station is a constrained, active industrial base
with no civilian traffic unless directly related to ships' services.
The Managed Care Plan for family members and retirees is to contract
with a local Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) or Preferred
Provider Organization (PPO) to provide both routine and specialty
outpatient care, as well as inpatient treatment. TRICARE was
implemented in Washington State March 1995. Parking for workers,
civilian and military, is on the periphery of the base. Buildings are
sited for walking, not vehicle traffic (except for industrial vehicles
such as forklifts and cranes).
Senator Murray. I would really appreciate that.
You also refer in your testimony to several additional
Washington State health facilities, including the Milcon
project at Naval Hospital Bremerton. In your testimony you said
that this is a fiscal year 1999 item. Is there any reason we
cannot move that up to 1998?
General Claypool. It is not ready for design yet. That
would prohibit that.
medical training at mc chord Air Force Base
Senator Murray. OK. We also understand that there is a
medical training facility request for McChord Air Force Base on
the Air Force accelerated priority list for 1998. Your
testimony did not mention this and I wanted to know if that
project is ready for construction in fiscal year 1998 and would
you support the inclusion in the construction budget?
General Claypool. It is under design right now and not yet
ready for execution.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Tell me about the situation at Portsmouth.
Evidently we did not plan far enough or should have planned
further. Can you bring us up to date on what is happening
there?
General Claypool. Yes, sir; as I understand it--I have not
yet visited the place and I plan to do that--over the life of
the entire project, health care and health care delivery and
how the place is going to be utilized has changed, and at the
present time, under the managed care environment that we have,
there is a need for administrative kinds of functions to
support the managed care program, TRICARE.
So I think to utilize the rest of 215, which is the old
medical facility, there are plans to relocate administrative
functions, the TRICARE support office and a naval environmental
health center in that building.
Senator Burns. Do you have planned downsizing there? Is
there a planned downsizing?
General Claypool. Sir, no; I think the answer to that is
no. We are reconfiguring in this day and agree of how we do
less inpatient, less overnight kinds of surgery, more same-day
surgery, more ambulatory care. So I think the work that is
being done there will be the same. The actual average daily
patient load of inpatients, that likely will change.
dla child care center
Senator Burns. Mr. Baillie, you might bring us up to date
on, for me, the requirement for a child care center at
Richmond, VA, as contained in this budget request.
Mr. Baillie. Yes, sir; right now, Mr. Chairman, there are
approximately 3,400 military and civilian employees working at
both the supply center and the distribution depot at Richmond.
There currently are no child care facilities for them at all,
neither Government-supported nor in the immediate area
surrounding the operation.
What this requires is for our folks to have to go through
some extraordinary means to make arrangements to care for their
children, so we believe that this is a project that is
definitely needed to improve the quality of work life at that
facility.
Senator Burns. That is just about all the questions that I
have for this panel. Senator Murray, do you have any followup?
Senator Murray. I just have one, if I could. General, I do
have in front of me a memorandum for the record dated March 17,
1997, from the Air Force with the accelerated priority list
that includes military construction money. The McChord medical
training facility is on here. You indicated it is not ready to
go forward. If it is not ready to go forward, why is it on the
accelerated priority list?
General Claypool. I understand, Senator, that it is
proposed to be accelerated in 1999.
Senator Murray. It is a letter for fiscal year 1998. It is
on the accelerated priority list.
General Claypool. We will have to get back to you for the
record.
Senator Murray. If you could, I would appreciate it,
because that is a very important one for us.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Based on the best information available to us (General Fogleman's
letter to Senator Thurmond dated 13 March 1997), the McChord Training
Facility referred to in the referenced letter is a notional list of
unfunded military construction requirements from the Air Force
Reserves. These types of facilities do not fall under the purview of
DMFO's medical military construction program.
Additional committee questions
Senator Burns. We may have other questions that will arise
as we work our way through this process. We appreciate you
coming this morning. I think other Senators will have questions
too. If you could respond to them and the committee, we will
make your statements and those responses part of the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agencies for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
portsmouth naval hospital
Question. General Claypool, why did DMFO not perform a
comprehensive review of medical requirements at Portsmouth before
January 1997? What action precipitated the review?
Answer. DMFO has performed numerous reviews of the Portsmouth
project throughout its development including but not limited to:
--Economic Analysis of 1988 (Proposed renovation of buildings 1 and
215 (partial) and construction of a new acute care facility)
--Space program review of 1990 (finalized the space requirements
based on economic analysis)
--Revalidation of 1992 (identified some reduction in space
requirements)
--DOD IG Review of 1993 (reduction of 101 beds)
--Health Care Requirements Analysis for Renovation of Building 215,
Phase IX, May/June 1995 (validated the requirements based upon
the condition of the present buildings, viability of the
Portsmouth mission and projected health care needs of the Tide
Water beneficiaries)
--GAO Review of 1997 (concluded that total renovation of building 215
is cost-effective)
--Revalidation of 1997 (full renovation of building 215 is the best
economic solution)
The Senate Appropriations Committee Conference Report for the
fiscal year 1997 Military Construction Bill directed the GAO to review
the requirements and funding which has been appropriated for the Naval
Hospital at Portsmouth.
Question. Has DMFO been a rubber stamp for Navy plans at
Portsmouth? Did DMFO play a role in reducing the scope or cost of this
project?
Answer. DMFO has never rubber stamped Navy plans at Portsmouth.
DMFO and Navy have been working together as a team to contain scope and
cost increase on this project. This project has been designed to or
less than the DOD's space criteria to meet these goals. Consolidation
of requirements in the Tidewater area have been thoroughly reviewed and
analyzed to arrive at the most efficient and cost-effective solution
for the Portsmouth Naval Hospital complex. In fact, Navy agreed to
reduce scope by 101 beds following the 1992 Health Affairs and DOD IG
review. DOD and Navy also eliminated hyperbaric medicine capability at
a cost avoidance of $13.6 million until considered ``medically
efficacious'' at some point in the future.
Question. What impact will the elimination of more than half of the
Graduate Medical Education programs have on the space requirements or
use at Portsmouth?
Answer. Elimination of Graduate Medical Education (GME) will have
no effect on space requirements at Portsmouth. The proposal to
terminate 7 of the 12 GME programs would have eliminated or realigned
87 of 198 resident billets. To accommodate the projected workload,
these residents would have to be replaced by 50 staff physicians who
would require the space under construction. The proposal to reduce GME
has been withdrawn by the Navy.
Question. Although the revalidation is ongoing, can you describe
the preliminary results?
Answer. Revalidation of the Phase IX, MILCON project at Portsmouth
has just been completed. It concludes that the requirement to renovate
Building 215 for both medical and administrative/support occupancy has
been and continues to be a reality and full renovation of Building 215
is the best economic solution. Timing is critical due to the linkage
between the pending Phase-9 renovation of Building 215 and all prior
construction currently underway at NMC Portsmouth. More than 1,000
people are scheduled to occupy the renovated 215. In the event
scheduled renovation work is delayed or canceled, nearly two-thirds of
them could be stranded in trailers or moved off base into leased office
space at substantial cost to the government. Any further delays may
result in additional real costs due to construction schedule
interruption.
Question. Has DMFO done any studies comparing the cost of
contracting for certain medical and support functions, rather than
funding additional DOD infrastructure for this?
Answer. DOD and Navy have done numerous studies for contracting
functions and both Departments continue to do so. Prior to undertaking
the Portsmouth project, an Economic Analysis compared the cost of
direct care with discounted contract care. Across virtually every
clinical area and for each beneficiary category, direct care at
Portsmouth was found to be the best economic solution. DOD follows this
process for each military treatment facility to determine the best
economic solution.
Question. Do you have any plans for consolidation of hospitals or
clinics?
Answer. Navy plans consolidating health care administration in the
northeast. Also, Navy is closing NH Millington and downsizing three
other hospitals at Groton, Corpus Christi and Patuxent River. Base
Realignment and Closure resulted in the closure of naval hospitals at
Philadelphia, Long Beach, Oakland, and Orlando. Navy also turned over
F. Edward Ebert hospital in New Orleans to the Chief of Naval Reserve
Forces retaining only a clinic in the building. On-going studies are
reviewing the future roles of health care facilities worldwide. In the
fiscal year 1998 budget submission, one project consolidates six troop
medical clinics into one and two projects rightsize hospitals to
clinics. Other consolidations may occur as Services decide on
realignment or rightsizing of its forces and market conditions
determine the best economic solution.
ussocom security measures
Question. Mr. Robinson, please explain what kind of security
measures are contained in your fiscal year 1998 budget request? Are
these upgrades a result of the Khobar Tower bombing?
Answer. The budget request contains two security improvement
projects:
--Hurlburt Field, FL: Perimeter Fence/Vehicle Barrier System ($2.45M)
--Fort Bragg, NC: Security Upgrades ($500K)
Both were identified during an OSD-directed review of security
requirements last fall. Several other security upgrade requirements
identified were satisfied with O&M or Procurement funding.
ussocom critical funding requirements
Question. In the past few years, the Congress has been instrumental
in adding MILCON projects outside the normal budget process. What
efforts are you taking to ensure that your most critical funding
requirements are met through the budget process?
Answer. With one exception, our current MILCON investment program
only allows funding for roughly $30 million in construction projects
each year. We have determined that we need about double that amount as
a continuing baseline to replace and renovate our aging facilities and
to solve facility space deficits. Funding for MILCON investment has
been necessarily limited within our total funding level in order to
protect our force structure and readiness demands. Given a higher level
of construction spending, we could begin to move projects from the
unfunded into the funded program and achieve improvement to our
operations and training capability in a much more reasonable timeframe.
An excellent example is replacement facilities for the 4th
Psychological Operations Group and the 96th Civil Affairs Battalion;
these units are among our most heavily tasked organizations and also
are among the last on Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to still be in World
War II era wooden facilities.
USSOCOM makes decisions on strategic planning, program, and budget
issues through the Board of Directors--a group made up of the CINC, the
Deputy Commander, the Commanders of our four component organizations,
and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-
Intensity Conflict. At this time, the board intends to fund our
planning and design in fiscal year 1999 at a level which will support a
program level, beginning in fiscal year 2000, of about $60 million per
year in constant dollars.
streamlining infrastructure
Question. Mr. Baillie, what actions has the Defense Logistics
Agency taken to reduce and streamline its infrastructure in keeping
with the overall downsizing of the Department of Defense? Are your
MILCON requirements for fiscal year 1998 reflective of this
restructuring?
Answer. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) announced on April 15,
1997, a new strategy to restructure its distribution depot system while
maintaining readiness and affordability of its services. DLA has been
reducing its distribution costs commensurate with the decline in
military force structure for several years and has significantly
reduced many of the direct costs of operations. This action, which
began on April 15 and will be completed over the next several years, is
intended to adjust the management overhead and reduce overall
distribution infrastructure to recognize the changing way in which DLA
has to do business to provide its military customers responsive and
affordable support.
In 1993 DLA's distribution management organization was comprised of
four regional offices and a staff element at DLA headquarters. Today,
the regional offices have been reduced to two. (Stockton, California
(Defense Distribution Region West-DDRW) and New Cumberland,
Pennsylvania (Defense Distribution Region East-DDRE)). Because
additional measures must be taken, the first step in DLA's
restructuring strategy is to realign, streamline, and further
consolidate headquarters distribution management, eliminating
duplication, reducing overhead costs, and thereby creating a more
efficient single DLA Distribution Center.
In May 1997, a site selection team began its analysis to determine
the best single location for DLA's distribution management
organization. Selection will be completed by September 1997. The total
streamlining effort is expected to eventually eliminate approximately
850 positions. This reduction will generate a projected annual savings
of about $34 million in fiscal year 2000 and beyond.
In addition to the Management Center, DLA operates 22 smaller
distribution depots throughout the United States and Europe. DLA has
been able to make great steps in reducing the number of depots through
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission decisions in 1993 and
1995 from 30 depots in 1992 to 24 now (including Primary Distribution
Sites (PDS's)); 13 in the Eastern Region and 11 in the Western Region.
There will be 19 depots remaining after BRAC-designated depots have
been closed.
Although a considerable amount of excess storage space and
inventories have been reduced at its distribution depots, DLA's
downsizing has not kept pace with the 35-40 percent reductions in
military force structure which have occurred within the Department of
Defense since fiscal year 1988. To accelerate downsizing further, DLA
has determined additional actions are required.
Accordingly, the second step of the restructuring strategy calls
for a program to subject all DLA distribution depots (excluding PDS's
and those depots designated for closure by BRAC) to public-private
competition on a site-by-site basis. DLA has selected this process as a
fair and effective method of creating rapid and significant cost
reduction in its shrinking distribution operations. Plans call for the
new Defense Distribution Center, teaming with the depots, to be the
Government's bidder for the depot work.
DLA plans call for implementation to be completed by 2001, with
projected savings in depot operating costs to be at least 20 percent.
These savings and reductions will be over and above those generated by
separate, additional downsizing and efficiency measures already
planned.
A similar restructuring effort was also announced for the Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Service business area on April 10, 1997.
Plans call for a 25 percent reduction in headquarters staffing and a
reduction in Defense Reutilization and Marketing Offices from 148 to
approximately 60 major sites in the continental United States to be
effected over the next two years.
fiscal year 1998 milcon requirements
Question. Are your MILCON requirements for fiscal year 1998
reflective of this restructuring?
Answer. Yes. Our strategy is to invest only in those facilities
that provide a long term return on investment and is in accordance with
our strategic plan.
child care center
Question. Describe for me the requirement for a Child Care Center
in Richmond, Virginia, as contained in the fiscal year 1998 Budget
request?
Answer. The feasibility study for the construction of a child care
facility at Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR) went through several
rigorous reviews to include a needs assessment of the population and
assessment of available child care centers in the local area. A needs
assessment was conducted in June 1992 with a total of 3,699 surveys
distributed and with a 21 percent (789) return. Of those responding, 37
percent (292) indicated an immediate need for child care facilities.
The Department of Defense (DOD) views early childhood programs as a
workforce priority. The emphasis is on providing personnel at least one
affordable options for a high quality, safe and developmentally
appropriate early childhood experience. National accreditation is
required by Public Law 101-189, Title XV, Military Child Care,
Accredited Child Care Center.
In the Richmond area, child care demand is high in the civilian
community. Nationally accredited civilian child care centers within an
8 mile radius of DSCR, which is located in an industrial area outside
the Richmond metropolitan city area, do not offer the capacity to meet
the needs of our DOD population. Within this radius, none of the
accredited child care centers offer infant care. When an accredited
civilian facility in the area recently opened, it rapidly filled to
capacity in less than 8 weeks.
personnel levels
Question. How many military personnel are assigned to this
facility? Does this number justify building a child care center when
child care is available in the local community?
Answer. The facility is designed to support the 2,940 DOD personnel
assigned to DSCR. Of these, 58 are military and 2,882 are DOD
civilians. It will also be available to the 37 military families
residing on the installation (DSCR) but are assigned elsewhere.
Department of Defense policy states the purpose of child care
programs is ``to assist DOD military and civilian personnel in
balancing the competing demands of family life and the accomplishment
of DOD mission and to improve the economic viability of the family
unit.'' Priority is given to working parents, both military and
civilians.
DLA strongly supports this MILCON project for the child care center
at DSCR. This initiative supports key work/life issues impacting on
personnel performance, the corporate ``bottom line,'' and successful
accomplishment of our combat support mission. Child care programs
support the President's initiatives on the Family Friendly workplace,
federal policies on early childhood development, and the National Goals
for Education 2000.
review of dfas operations
Question. Mr. Carnes, I understand that the DOD Comptroller has
directed DFAS to reexamine its operations in light of new business
practices that have been adopted. I further understand that this may
impact the total number of DFAS facilities required by DFAS. When is
this review scheduled to be complete?
Answer. Preliminary results of the study will be presented to the
DOD Comptroller in the summer of 1997.
fiscal year 1998 milcon request
Question. I am concerned about the requirement to renovate the
three centers in the fiscal year 1998 budget. Why should we appropriate
money for these projects when the DOD Comptroller certification has not
happened yet and the review process is still ongoing?
Answer. Funds should be appropriated for the renovation of three of
our Operating Locations, as requested in the President's fiscal year
1998 budget proposal, for two reasons. First, we expect that during the
summer the DOD Comptroller will certify the need to renovate certain
Operating Locations, but that this certification will occur after the
Subcommittee has marked up the appropriation. Thus, funds would not be
available if the Subcommittee required certification prior to the
appropriation.
Second, the appropriation of funds will neither obviate nor
supersede the requirement that the Comptroller certify as to the need
for these facilities in order to spend funds to renovate them. However,
should the Subcommittee not appropriate the funds but the Comptroller
certify as to the need for the facilities, the absence of the
appropriation would make it impossible for us to renovate those
facilities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Stevens
replacement for bassett army community hospital
Question. The Army intends to build a 50-bed hospital at Fort
Wainwright, Alaska. What does the timeline look like for the
construction of this new facility?
Answer. Bassett Army Community Hospital will be a 32-bed facility,
not a 50-bed facility. Following is the current scheduled timeline for
the programmed fiscal year 2000 design and construction of this
facility:
--35 percent design complete: 24 July 1998;
--RTA for Construction: 1 September 1999;
--Contract Award: 30 November 1999;
--Construction start: April 2000.
Question. What is the approximate size of the facility and what
part will it play in the Alaska health care partnership?
Answer. The replacement facility will be a 32-bed hospital. Bassett
Army Community Hospital does not ``directly'' play a part in the Alaska
Federal Health Care Partnership. It does support the Partnership, as
the new facility design continues to support current levels of service
at Bassett. The existing Alaska Federal Health Care Partnership is
primarily an inter-agency contracting support agreement. There are no
TRICARE wrap-around contracts in Alaska. DOD depends on individual
provider contracts for TRICARE services. Through the Alaska Federal
Health Care Partnership, federal agencies can more effectively
negotiate as a unit in Alaska's non-competitive environment.
elmendorf tank farm
Question. Could you please explain how DFSC intends to spend the $3
million that we added for planning and design for the Elmendorf Tank
Farm? I understand that money was intended for design and planning, not
a new hydrant system.
Answer. These funds will be used to install and upgrade pipelines
to improve fuel distribution to current and planned tanks and hydrant
fuel systems at Elmendorf AFB, AK. Congress added the $3 million to the
Defense Agencies' construction account, not the planning and design
account. Neither information in congressional reports nor any
communication with DLA described the purpose of these funds. Lacking
any guidance, DLA developed a project, after the funds were
appropriated, based on information provided to the staff of the Senate
Armed Services Committee on April 26, 1996, when they initially asked
us about additional needs at Elmendorf AFB. At that time, we said these
funds would be used to improve the base's fuel distribution pipelines
to support the construction of a $21.7 million fuel farm replacement
project programmed for fiscal year 1998. We formally notified the
appropriate Congressional committees of the scope of this project on
February 10, 1997, before beginning design work.
Design of these pipeline improvements is 30 percent complete.
Design of the 250,000-barrel tank farm is 50 percent complete. DLA
funded these designs from the Defense Agencies Planning and Design
accounts. If Congress approves the fiscal year 1998 project, we will
solicit one construction contract to accomplish both projects. The
expected contract award date is March 1998.
whittier tank farm
Question. What is DFSC schedule to turn back to the Army the
Whittier Tank Farm Facility? What potential problems do you envision
with environmental concerns?
Answer. DFSC completed fuel contract operations at Whittier on May
30, 1997. All DLA product has been removed and the fuel tanks cleaned.
DFSC is currently coordinating the schedule for return of the Whittier
facility with the Army. We understand the Army intends to make the
Whittier facility available for lease to interested commercial
activities in the near future.
DFSC will require continued access to the Whittier facility for
environmental assessment and any required remediation during the
initial portion, at least, of the proposed lease period. They are
developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOW) with the Army addressing
continued access and lease requirements in order to limit DOD's
environmental liability to only remediation required as a result of
past DFSC fuel operations. The environmental assessment and any
required remediation of the terminal is a long-term process (probably
3-5 years). DFSC will need unconstrained access for the environmental
assessment/remediation contractor during that time.
DFSC has completed the site characterization phase; the risk
assessment will be finished in 1998. Based on the results of the risk
assessment, cleanup standards will be established, and construction of
any required remediation system will proceed.
conclusion of hearings
Senator Burns. With that, I thank you for coming this
morning and we appreciate your participation and your time.
These proceedings are recessed.
[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., Thursday, May 8, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Baillie, Frederick N., Executive Director, Business Management,
Department of Defense.......................................... 101
Prepared statement........................................... 110
Bradley, Brig. Gen. John A., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.... 35
Brunelli, Capt. John, Deputy Chief, Naval Reserve, U.S. Navy,
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.................. 1
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana, questions
submitted by...................................................
53, 92, 119....................................................
Carnes, Bruce M., Deputy Director for Resource Management,
Department of Defense.......................................... 101
Prepared statement........................................... 113
Claypool, Brig. Gen. Robert G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Health Services Operations and Readiness), Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Services Operations and
Readiness, Department of Defense............................... 101
Prepared statement........................................... 106
Coleman, Rodney A., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations and Environment,
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense............. 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho, prepared statement 4
Faircloth, Hon. Lauch, U.S. Senator from North Carolina,
questions submitted by......................................... 93
Lupia, Maj. Gen. Eugene A., Air Force Civil Engineer, Department
of the Air Force, Department of Defense........................ 35
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington, questions
submitted by...................................................
30, 54.........................................................
Nash, Rear Adm. David, Chief, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, U.S. Navy, Department of the Navy, Department of
Defense........................................................ 1
Pirie, Robert B., Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy,
Installations and Environment, Department of the Navy,
Department of Defense.......................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada:
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Questions submitted by.......................................
33, 58, 98.................................................
Robinson, Gary W., Command Engineer, U.S. Special Operations
Command, Department of Defense................................. 101
Prepared statement........................................... 102
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, questions submitted
by............................................................. 123
Stewart, Maj. Gen. Joseph, Deputy Chief of Staff, Installations
and Logistics, U.S. Marine Corps, Department of the Navy,
Department of Defense.......................................... 1
Walker, Robert M., Assistant Secretary for Installations,
Logistics, and Environment, Department of the Army, Department
of Defense..................................................... 61
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Weaver, Brig. Gen. Paul A., Deputy Director, Air National Guard,
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense............. 35
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Agencies
assistant secretary of defense for health services operations and
readiness
Page
McChord Air Force Base, medical training at...................... 118
Medical/dental clinic, Everett, WA............................... 117
defense finance and accounting service
Financial data, movement of...................................... 116
defense logistics agency
Distribution and supply center investments....................... 111
DLA child care center............................................ 118
Fuel mission responsibilities, new............................... 110
Military construction request.................................... 110
u.s. special operations command
Milcom Program................................................... 102
Purpose.......................................................... 102
Department of the Air Force
Aviano AB, Italy................................................. 46
Budget request:
Air Guard.................................................... 52
Family housing............................................... 51
Milcon backlog................................................... 49
Privatization initiative, military housing....................... 48
Reserve components:
Budget for................................................... 48
Wartime contributions of..................................... 50
Survival school, USAF............................................ 51
Department of the Army
Active and Reservce Forces, reduction to......................... 87
Barracks projects overseas....................................... 85
BRAC............................................................. 85
Budgets, Guard and Reserve....................................... 91
Child development centers........................................ 87
Family housing improvement fund.................................. 88
Fort Carson, housing privatization............................... 91
Fort Leavenworth, disciplinary barracks.......................... 90
NATO, planning/expansion of...................................... 86
Quality of life issues........................................... 88
SOUTHCOM, relocation of.......................................... 89
Department of the Navy
Adak Naval Air facility.......................................... 22
Bangor, WA, housing initiative................................... 20
Base closure..................................................... 27
And realignment.............................................. 6
BRAC environmental cleanup....................................... 27
Community facilities............................................. 28
El Toro base closure............................................. 20
Ford Island development plan..................................... 25
Housing construction budget...................................... 19
One plus one barracks requirement................................ 25
Port of Long Beach............................................... 26
(all)