[Senate Hearing 105-654]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[DOCID: f:46111]
S. Hrg. 105-654
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4059/S. 2160
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999,
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
46-111 cc WASHINGTON : 1998
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
ISBN 0-16-057578-8
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 3, 1998
Department of Defense:
Department of the Army....................................... 1
Defense agencies:
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and
Readiness)............................................. 39
U.S. Special Operations Command.......................... 39
Defense Logistics Agency................................. 39
TRICARE Management Activity.............................. 39
Tuesday, March 10, 1998
Department of Defense:
Department of the Navy....................................... 57
Department of the Air Force.................................. 87
Tuesday, May 12, 1998
Department of Defense:
Department of the Navy....................................... 109
Department of the Army....................................... 119
Department of the Air Force.................................. 125
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:59 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns and Stevens.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
STATEMENT OF ALMA B. MOORE, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY (INSTALLATIONS, LOGISTICS, AND
ENVIRONMENT)
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MAJ. GEN. DAVID A. WHALEY, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF FOR
INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT
BRIG. GEN. JAMES R. HELMLY, DEPUTY CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE
BRIG. GEN. MICHAEL J. SQUIER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL
GUARD
PAUL JOHNSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND
HOUSING
OPENING STATEMENT OF CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. We are going to call these hearings to
order.
Senator Murray will be by shortly. She has Mr. Gates--I
asked her if that is the fellow that makes the tires, and it
was not--this morning on the Hill. And we sure want to make a
space for Senator Murray and her staff. She is a delight to
work with on this particular committee.
I made the suggestion earlier today that I think we ought
to start these appropriations hearings at 8 a.m., and I see
there are some heads going up and down out there. Now, to us
old farm broadcasters, that is still way up in the middle of
the day, but we would have a lot more time afterward to get
some things done that we needed done.
So, I will call this committee to order. This morning we
will hear testimony on the military construction, family base
housing [BRAC], and Reserve component programs for the U.S.
Army, as well as the military construction programs for defense
agencies.
I appreciate Secretary Moore and all of you coming down
this morning. We will hear from the Department of the Army
first. We are pleased to have the Acting Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Installations, Logistics, and Environment.
Secretary Moore, welcome. I think this is the first time you
have had the opportunity to appear before this committee. If
you would like to introduce some of your very elite and I would
say knowledgeable support for this morning, you may do that at
this time.
Ms. Moore. Thank you, sir.
Joining me today representing the total Army is Maj. Gen.
Dave Whaley, Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management; Brig. Gen. Michael Squier, Deputy Director of the
Army National Guard; and Brig. Gen. James Helmly, Deputy Chief
of the Army Reserve; and Mr. Paul Johnson, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Installations and Housing.
Senator Burns. Let me tell you right now that we are very,
very proud of the U.S. Army and our people that serve in
uniform. We continue to be concerned about losing some good
people, and sometimes it is quality of life issues that are the
final decisions not only for the single soldier but also for
our people with a high degree of dedication that are married
and have families.
I want to commend the leadership for its continued
commitment toward improving the quality of life for our single
soldiers. I guess I become more concerned about them as time
moves on.
The Army's emphasis on replacing and renovating barracks is
critical to meeting the long-term recruiting and retention
goals. It is essential that our service members and their
families live in housing that is comparable to our civilian
counterparts. I think that is very, very important.
However, I continue to--about the low level proposed
funding--we know that we are going to go into some budget
strains. Our overall appropriations for military construction
is almost $1 billion less than 1 year ago, and so we are going
to have to be very, very creative and innovative to fulfill our
mission that we have before us.
The National Guard. I have seen the condition of some
facilities. They are completely unacceptable. We hear a lot of
rhetoric about whenever we try to improve our Guard and our
Reserve facilities as taking money to our home States. Whenever
we see the integration of the regulars with Guard and Reserves,
we cannot expect our Guard and Reserves to be up to capacity
unless they have the facilities in order to train and to be a
part of this Army.
We must do more in providing those working conditions. They
deserve every consideration in this process. The restoring of
those five line item veto military construction I think in the
last appropriation was a good indication that there is support
in the Congress for the thrust of which we are traveling down
today to see an integrated Army as a viable force.
So, we do appreciate your efforts. We look forward to
working with you to ensure that those critical requirements and
those needs are met.
So, Madam Secretary, we are looking forward to your
statement.
We are joined today by the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, Mr. Stevens. I know you are working on a tight
schedule. Are there any questions before you hear Secretary
Moore's statement?
Senator Stevens. I would like to hear the Secretary. I may
submit my questions. It depends. I have to meet with Senator
Byrd. They will call me when I have to go.
prepared statements
Senator Burns. OK. I do have statements from Senators
Faircloth and Craig that I would like to put in the record at
this point.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Lauch Faircloth
Mr. Chairman, we have just finished our work on the 1998 Military
Construction Appropriation, and right on it's heels, we have to make
the same types of repairs to the President's request for next year's
Mil Con budget. The Administration, once again, has low-balled our
nation's defense needs, leaving us the responsibility to be sure that
our fine men and women in uniform are not left to operate on a
shoestring. Same as last year, we will be expected to add the funding
necessary to continue the essential task of rebuilding our defensive
capability. If the Congress took a pass and simply agreed to the
President's request, our military infrastructure would crumble.
For example, the need to ensure the security of our military bases
should be one of our highest priorities. At Fort Bragg, one of our
largest and most important posts for worldwide power projection, we
have absolutely no control over base access. Now, this deficiency has
been well known for a number of years, but yet there is no request for
funds in the President's budget for the security of this vital base.
I'm sure that this is only one of many necessary projects that the
Administration left unfunded with the expectation that Congress would
pick up the slack.
I intend to fight to get the extra dollars that we need so that we
can have an adequate military construction budget. National security is
the most important function of the Federal Government, and it must be
funded first.
Where do we get the offsets? By cutting back those Federal programs
that are not properly the function of the Federal Government. And, when
we have exhausted that as a source of funding, by moving funds within
this budget from lower priority programs to the most important.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you to ensure that
adequate funds can be found for our military construction needs around
the world. I would also like to thank you and Chairman Stevens for your
leadership on getting those 38 military construction projects back on
track. The urban training facility at Fort Bragg should not be put off
even one more year.
______
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 on
Military Construction. This is my second year as a member of this
Subcommittee, and I am very proud of the work we accomplished for the
fiscal year 1998 budget. We worked diligently to provide and restore
funds for essential projects at our military installations in support
of our men and women in uniform. I look forward to evaluating the
military construction needs of our armed forces again this year.
The military construction budget provides necessary funding for the
planning, design, construction, alteration, and improvement of military
facilities worldwide. It also finances construction, and improvements
for military family housing. Military construction not only helps our
troops to better perform their missions, it also supports our service
members with the facilities that contributed to their quality of life
and that of their families. Unfortunately, this is not a budget
President Clinton seems to support. For fiscal year 1998, this
Administration requested funding levels below both the fiscal year 1996
and fiscal year 1997 levels. This chronic under funding by the
Administration makes some wonder how this President can ask our service
members to do so much, with so little.
I think we were all pleased to see the successful override of
President Clinton's veto of the 38 military construction projects. That
vote sent a clear signal to the Administration that under funding of
military construction will not be tolerated by this Congress. We
understand the needs of service members, and we will support those
necessary projects. As a fiscal conservative, I take seriously the
responsibly of working within the framework of a balanced budget as we
make decisions about program funding. However, it is also important to
keep in mind that there is sometimes potential savings from improving
infrastructure at military facilities.
Mr. Chairman, once again, thank you for your work and efforts, and
I look forward to continually working with you and the Committee, so
that our men and women in uniform receive the support and facilities
they deserve.
statement of alma b. moore
Secretary Moore, thank you very much for coming this
morning.
Ms. Moore. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today to
discuss the Army's budget request for military construction,
family housing, and base realignment and closures for the
fiscal year 1999.
I have already introduced the gentlemen behind me, and we
have a combined statement which provides in-depth detail to the
military construction budget request for fiscal year 1999. With
your permission, I would like to submit the full statement for
the record and highlight those areas that contribute to
readiness and enhance the quality of life for our soldiers and
their families.
Senator Burns. Without exception, all of the statements
will be made a part of the record.
Ms. Moore. First I would like to talk about the program of
which I personally am most proud, our barracks renewal. The
fiscal year 1999 military construction budget's main focus is
the whole barracks renewal program. This budget request
represents our efforts to provide our single soldiers with a
quality living environment, not just a place to live. The One
Plus One Program provides personal privacy, larger rooms,
closets, upgraded day rooms, and additional parking. An
improved quality of life such as this program provides is
essential to attracting and retaining quality soldiers. We
thank this subcommittee for the strong support you have given
to the Army over the years in this regard.
The budget before you includes 12 projects totaling $307
million for this purpose. This will keep us on track to
accomplish our goal of modernizing all barracks in Conus by
2008, in Europe by 2010, and in Korea by 2012.
Next I would like to briefly discuss the Army's strategy to
meet family housing needs through maintenance, divestiture, and
privatization. This budget request provides funds to renovate
514 existing units and to replace 560 units. The request also
reflects the demolition of 350 houses that do not meet
standards and would be too costly to repair. But, Mr. Chairman,
these efforts do not come close to fixing the Army's housing
problems.
The capital venture initiative [CVI], also known as the
military housing privatization initiative, will allow the Army
to leverage funds appropriated for housing and Army owned
assets such as land to encourage the private sector to own,
manage, repair, improve, and construct family housing. Under
current funding projections, it would take approximately 130
years to revitalize family housing worldwide. Under CVI, if we
can make it work, we expect to complete revitalization by 2010.
The major benefit would be that our soldiers and their families
would receive quality housing much sooner.
The Army's first CVI project is planned for Fort Carson,
CO. Congress was notified of our intent to award a contract on
February 10 and the 30-day clock is running. If there is no
objection expressed by Congress during the 30-day notification
period, we plan to award a contract by mid to late March to
improve 1,824 existing units and construct 840 new units.
Our plan is to use these authorities wherever feasible and
economical in the United States. We will apply Fort Carson
lessons learned to develop 26 additional projects. Your support
of this effort is essential to permit us to leverage scarce
housing resources and provide quality housing to all of our
soldiers and their families in a much shorter period of time.
This year's military construction budget was built on the
Army's one team, one fight, one future concept. We made a
conscientious effort to balance our resources among all
components: the Active Army, the National Guard, and the Army
Reserve.
I have already talked about whole barracks renewal and
housing, but I want you to know that our focus is also on
Reserve centers and National Guard readiness centers. The
Reserve components were at the table throughout the budget
process, and I think they will tell you they received a fair
share of very limited resources. Readiness remains the No. 1
priority for the Army and I would like to highlight those
projects in the budget request that enhance our mission
capabilities.
This budget request continues to provide funding for the
strategic mobility program to ensure our soldiers can deploy
their equipment as expeditiously as possible. Funding is also
included to complete buyout of the close combat tactical
training facilities, a program which began in fiscal year 1994.
Mr. Chairman, the greatest challenge facing the total Army
in this budget, and as we move toward the future, is balancing
today's readiness and quality of life with tomorrow's
modernization requirements within available resources. This
military construction budget continues our goal to provide
better living conditions for the families and the single
soldier while also providing the total Army with valuable
facilities to enhance readiness.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and we are ready
for your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alma B. Moore
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 year 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 America's 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
I am pleased to present the Active Army's portion of the Military
Construction budget request for fiscal year 1999. This budget provides
construction and family housing resources essential to support your
Army's role in our National Military Strategy.
The program presented requests fiscal year 1999 appropriations for
Military Construction, Army (MCA) of $790,876,000, $1,208,173,000 for
Army Family Housing (AFH) and $12,800,000 for Homeowners Assistance
Fund, Defense. The companion request for authorization of
appropriations in fiscal year 1999 includes $790,876,000 for MCA,
$1,208,173,000 for AFH and $12,800,000 for Homeowners Assistance Fund,
Defense. The fiscal year 1999 request for authorization is
$1,134,753,000 for MCA, $1,209,812,000 for AFH and $12,800,000 for
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense.
The Army is a ``Total Force.'' We are an institution with people as
its core. We are comprised of Active Duty, National Guard, Army
Reserve, civilian employees, and family members serving our nation. We
have served the United States with distinction, both at home and
abroad, in peace and in war.
The Army has evolved to meet the challenges of today. Our prime
mission remains constant: To fight and win the nation's wars. However,
the Total Army must also perform a wide variety of other missions
around the world and at home, including deterring potential
adversaries, reassuring and lending stability to allies and supporting
our communities in times of emergency. In the multitude of military
operations since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Army has done our
nation's heavy lifting, accounting for over 60 percent of the forces
committed to these operations. Deployed or stationed in over 100
countries in 1997, American soldiers and civilians helped shape the
international environment by their presence and by carrying the values
of our Army and the nation with them.
The Total Army is a more streamlined force, capable of projecting
power from installations either in the United States or from forward
deployed bases, and of operating effectively with a broad range of
allies or coalition partners. America's Army is a busy Army. On any
given day in 1997, the Army had on average over 31,000 Active and
Reserve soldiers and civilians deployed in over 70 countries. In May,
we were deployed to over 100 countries for the first time in Army's
history. Soldiers who were deployed on contingency deployments,
operational deployments, and non-local training exercises were away
from their home stations for an average of 197 days in fiscal year
1997.
Supporting the increased tempo of the post-Cold War requires a
Total Army effort. In Bosnia, approximately 25 percent of the Army
forces are from the Army Reserve and National Guard. A civilian
contingent also provides needed support to our Army in Bosnia. Reserve
Component soldiers also augmented active duty soldiers in Macedonia,
participated in a wide range of training deployments and exercises, and
provided essential backfill to critical support functions in Germany to
replace Active units that were deployed elsewhere. In day-to-day
operations abroad and at home, the collective efforts of Active, Guard,
Reserve and civilian members contribute to the success of the Total
Army.
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 taking
care of our soldiers and families. People 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
attract and retain the soldiers necessary to maintain the Total 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 the Army's facilities strategy as we
move toward the new millennium.
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 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) to help formulate and monitor our
facilities strategy. We use it 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 1998. 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 competitive sourcing of certain
functions. It is proving an effective solution for installation
utilities systems. Our goal is to privatize all utility systems, except
those needed for unique security reasons, where it is economically
feasible by 2000. 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 to provide some facilities is also a viable alternative to
Army owned facilities.
Over the period 1999-2003, the Army plans to achieve over
$1,000,000,000 in estimated savings from our Major Commands, with U.S.
installations to provide additional resources for modernization and
other high priorities. These reductions are based on estimated savings
derived from performing A-76 cost competition studies of commercial
activities comprising over 50,000 positions during fiscal years 1999-
2003. The Army's primary challenge is to accomplish these cost-
effective measures as soon as possible.
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 four major
categories of projects: mission facilities; quality of life projects;
support programs such as infrastructure and environmental projects; and
chemical demilitarization, for which the funding was transferred from
the Military Construction, Defense account to the Military
Construction, Army program as a result of the Defense Reform
Initiative. I will now explain our request for each of these areas.
mission facilities
In fiscal year 1999 there are nine mission facility projects
totaling $112,450,000. Essential mission facilities include several
initiatives such as the Army Strategic Mobility Program (ASMP), Close
Combat Tactical Training (CCTT) facilities, and the relocation of the
U.S. Southern Command from Panama.
Army Strategic Mobility Program.--Fiscal year 1999 continues the
upgrade of the strategic mobility infrastructure we started several
years ago. This program ensures that we maintain the best power
projection platforms to meet the mission of the Army.
Fiscal year 1999 includes an upgrade to air deployment facilities
at Fort Bragg, $30,000,000. We are requesting full authorization and
advance appropriation of the railhead loading facility at Fort Hood,
$32,500,000 with appropriations and authorization of appropriations for
Phase I at $17,500,000. Also included are container and MILVAN loading
and shipping facilities for McAlester Army Ammunition Plant,
$10,800,000; Tooele Army Depot, $3,900,000; Anniston Army Depot,
$3,550,000; Bluegrass Depot Activity, $5,300,000; and Phase 2 at Crane
Army Ammunition Activity, $7,100,000.
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. The first CCTT became operational in 1997
and provides a long-term, cost-effective option to field exercises,
thereby reducing our reliance on field exercises as the single method
for combined arms training. The budget request includes one facility in
fiscal year 1999 at Fort Lewis, $7,600,000. This request completes the
CCTT construction program.
Relocation of United States southern command.--The Panama Canal
Treaty of 1977 mandates that all U.S. military forces relocate out of
the Republic of Panama by December 31, 1999. Plans have been developed
for the acquisition of the Miami facility for Headquarters, U.S.
Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) to ensure uninterrupted accomplishment of
theater responsibilities. Based on current estimates, our fiscal year
1999 budget requests $26,700,000 for the purchase of a headquarters
building and land acquisition for force protection. Purchase of the
building and land complies with the administration's position on
acquisition of capital assets for the long term.
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 40 percent of the fiscal year 1999 request is
for projects in this category. This substantial effort will maintain
our goal to improve our unaccompanied living facilities by 2012. 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. Overseas, we are continuing our investment strategy to
address 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 quality living environment, 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 1999, we are planning
twelve projects totaling $306,857,000. This includes one project in
Europe at $18,000,000 and four projects in Korea at $45,926,000 to
address the substandard living conditions there. Our budget also
expands and funds the completion of the Fort Sill barracks renewal
complex, $20,500,000, that was authorized in fiscal year 1998. We are
requesting an additional $3,500,000 authorization to complete the
project due to an increased price estimate of the total cost to build
the barracks complex.
Child development centers.--Two child development centers (CDC) are
requested in fiscal year 1999, one in Germany at $4,250,000, and the
other in Belgium, $6,300,000. These facilities are currently located in
a temporary, makeshift collection of prefabricated structures that are
20 to 26 years old. The CDC's do not comply with minimum fire safety
and health standards and cannot be modified to meet the standards.
Constant and intense repair and maintenance are required to keep the
facilities operational.
support programs
Included in this area are those projects which provide vital
support to installations and balance to the military construction
program. In fiscal year 1999, we have requested fourteen projects
totaling $163,450,000 in this budget area. Projects include three
projects at Yakima Training Center--a central fuel facility,
$3,950,000; a central vehicle washrack expansion, $4,650,000; 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, WA. One project is requested for Fort Irwin: completion of
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 is authorized and funded in prior years.
Construction of the National Ground Intelligence Center at
Charlottesville, VA, $46,200,000, is in fiscal year 1999.
Appropriations and authorization of appropriations is requested for the
first phase, $12,600,000, of a power plant for Kwajalein Atoll, with
full authorization of $48,600,000 and advance appropriation of
$36,000,000. Construction of the U.S. Army Disciplinary Barracks, begun
in fiscal year 1998, continues with an authorization of appropriations
and appropriations request for Phase II at $29,000,000 and a request
for advance appropriations of $13,000,000 for the final phase in fiscal
year 2000. Phase 2 of the Missile Software Engineering Annex, begun in
fiscal year 1998, is also included. We are requesting appropriations
and authorization of appropriations of $13,600,000 to complete the
project.
There are four other projects at Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Sill, Fort
Detrick, Rock Island Arsenal for infrastructure and revitalization in
the United States totaling $27,850,000. Now, let me discuss the project
we have requested at the U.S. Military Academy.
U.S. Military Academy.--Fiscal year 1999 requests funding for the
first phase, $12,000,000, of the revitalization of the cadet physical
development center at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point. In
addition, the full authorization of $85,000,000 and advance
appropriation of $73,000,000 is requested for this multi-year project.
This project will revitalize through replacement the majority of the
existing facility. The project will correct major deficiencies in fire
and life safety codes, substandard conditions, and provide a facility
to allow cadets to accomplish their physical development training
requirements. This project is essential to execution of the training
mission of the U.S. Military Academy.
ammunition demilitarization
The Ammunition Demilitarization (Chem Demil) Program is designed to
destroy the U.S. inventory of lethal chemical agents and munitions and
related (non-stockpiled) material and provide for emergency response
capabilities, while avoiding future risks and costs associated with the
continued storage of chemical warfare material. The program supports
the international initiatives to destroy chemical weapons of war. The
Chem Demil program was established by the National Defense
Authorization Act for 1986 (Public Law 99-145 as amended) which directs
the Department of Defense to destroy the complete unitary chemical
stockpile by April 29, 2007.
In accordance with the recent Defense Reform Initiative Report, all
program funding will be devolved from the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to the Department of the Army beginning in fiscal year 1999. A
total of $125,300,000 is included in the Army's fiscal year 1999
appropriations and authorization of appropriations submission for this
activity. In addition, advance appropriation of $418,050,000 is
requested to complete the projects. Authorization for $404,777,000 is
also required for the Chem Demil program which includes the balance of
needed authorization for projects previously approved in prior years
and full authorization for new projects.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD--Ammun Demil Support
Facility............................................ $1,850,000
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD--Ammun Demil Facility....... 26,500,000
Newport Army Depot, IN--Ammun Demil Support Facility.... 2,000,000
Newport Army Depot, IN--Ammun Demil Facility............ 27,500,000
Pine Bluff Army Depot, AR--Ammun Demil Facility......... 16,500,000
Umatilla Army Depot, OR--Ammun Demil Facility........... 50,950,000
planning and design
The fiscal year 1999 MCA budget includes $41,819,000 for planning
and design. This request is based on the size of the two succeeding
fiscal year military construction programs. The requested amount will
be used to complete design on fiscal year 2000 projects and to initiate
design on fiscal year 2001 projects. The size of the fiscal year 1999
request is, therefore, a function of the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001 construction programs.
Host Nation Support (HNS) Planning and Design (P&D).--The Army, as
Executive Agent, provides HNS P&D for oversight of Host Nation funded
design and construction projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
oversees the design and construction to ensure the facilities meet our
requirements and standards. The fiscal year 1998 Congressional
reduction in HNS P&D is causing turmoil and necessitating the
curtailment of oversight execution. Lack of oversight may result in an
increase in design errors and construction deficiencies that will
require U.S. dollars to rectify. Maintaining the funding level for this
mission results in a payback where one dollar of U.S. funding gains $60
worth of Host Nation construction. The fiscal year 1999 budget request
for $20,450,000 will provide oversight for approximately $1 billion of
construction in Japan, $100 million in Korea and $52 million in Europe.
The budget includes $2,000,000 which is dedicated to the oversight of
facilities associated with the Government of Japan (GOJ) funded
initiative to consolidate and relocate U.S. Forces on Okinawa. The U.S.
Government funding for this initiative is limited to $26.5 million over
the next 11 years for costs associated with oversight of the design and
construction of the facilities.
Let me show you the analysis of our fiscal year 1999 request.
budget request analysis
Summary.--The fiscal year 1999 MCA budget includes a request for
appropriations of $790,876,000 and companion authorization of
appropriations request of $790,876,000.
Authorization request.--The request for authorization is
$1,134,753,000. The appropriations request is reduced by the
authorization from fiscal year 1998 to fund the second phase of the
U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, $29,000,000; the Software Engineering Annex
at Redstone Arsenal, $13,600,000; and the remainder of the Whole
Barracks Renewal Complex at Fort Sill, $17,000,000. Additionally, it is
reduced by $44,573,000 for the Umatilla Ammunition Demilitarization
project, based on prior year authorization. The request was increased
to provide full authorization of: $85,000,000 for the U.S. Military
Academy project to replace the Cadet Physical Development Center (only
$12,000,000 in appropriations is required for the first phase of this
project); $48,600,000 for the Roi Namur Power Plant, with appropriation
of $12,600,000 required for the first phase; $32,500,000 for the
railhead loading facility at Fort Hood, with appropriations of
$17,500,000 for Phase 1 in fiscal year 1999; $184,500,000 for the
Aberdeen Proving Ground Ammunition Demilitarization project, with
appropriations of $26,500,000; $189,550,000 for the Newport Army Depot
Ammunition Demilitarization project, with appropriations of
$27,500,000; and $20,500,000 for the Pine Bluff Army Depot Ammunition
Demilitarization project, with an appropriations request of
$16,500,000.
The fiscal year 1999 request for appropriations for fiscal year
1999, by investment focus, is shown in Table 1:
TABLE 1.--INVESTMENT FOCUS APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Category 1999 Percent
appropriations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Barracks Renewal......................... $306,857,000 38.8
Strategic Mobility............................. 78,150,000 9.9
Leadership Initiatives......................... 72,900,000 9.2
Environmental.................................. 2,000,000 0.3
Critical Mission............................... 133,400,000 16.9
Planning and Design/Minor Construction......... 72,269,000 9.1
------------------------
Subtotal Army MILCON..................... 665,576,000 84.2
Chemical Demilitarization...................... 125,300,000 15.8
------------------------
Total program............................ 790,876,000 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 shows the fiscal year 1999 distribution of the
appropriations request among the Army's major commands.
TABLE 2.--COMMAND SUMMARY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Percent
Command 1999 of
appropriations total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inside the United States:
Forces Command............................. 174,500,000 22.1
Training and Doctrine Command.............. 119,831,000 15.2
U.S. Army, Pacific......................... 47,500,000 6.0
Army Materiel Command...................... 174,850,000 22.1
Medical Command............................ 25,350,000 3.2
Intelligence and Security Command.......... 46,200,000 5.8
U.S. Army, South........................... 26,700,000 3.4
USMA....................................... 12,000,000 1.5
Classified Project......................... 4,600,000 0.6
------------------------
Subtotal................................. 631,531,000 79.9
========================
Outside the United States:
Space and Missile Defense Command.......... 12,600,000 1.6
Eighth, United States Army................. 45,926,000 5.8
United States Army, Europe................. 28,550,000 3.6
------------------------
Subtotal................................. 87,076,000 11.0
========================
Total major construction................. 718,607,000 90.9
========================
Worldwide
Planning and Design........................ 62,269,000 7.9
Minor Construction......................... 10,000,000 1.2
------------------------
Subtotal................................. 72,269,000 9.1
========================
Total appropriations requested........... 790,876,000 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advance appropriation.--With full authorization, a single contract
can be awarded. Advance appropriations allows the Army to construct all
phases of a project as a continuous project and minimizes any impact to
the contractor due to the incremental funding. With advance
appropriations, the contract will not define the work to be performed
by the contractor, but only limit the work by the amount appropriated
in a given year. Advance appropriations of $555,050,000 are requested
for: the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, $13,000,000; the Roi Namur Power
Plant, $36,000,000; the Fort Hood Railhead facility, $15,000,000; and
the Cadet Physical Development Center, $73,000,000. Also included in
the advance appropriations request are four Chem Demil projects at
$418,050,000.
Table 3 provides a summary of the request for Authorization and
Advance Appropriations.
TABLE 3.--AUTHORIZATION AND ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
[In million of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation Advance appropriations Authorization
and -----------------------------------------------------------------------
authorization Fiscal year--
fiscal year ------------------------------------ Total Prior year Request
1999 2000 2001 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project:
Redstone: Software Engr Anx.................................. 13.600 .......... .......... .......... .......... \1\ 27.000 ..........
Fort Sill: Barracks Complex.................................. 20.500 .......... .......... .......... .......... \2\ 25.000 3.500
Fort Leavenworth: USDB....................................... 29.000 13.000 .......... .......... 13.000 \3\ 63.000 ..........
Fort Hood: Railhead Fac...................................... 17.500 15.000 .......... .......... 15.000 .......... 32.500
West Point: Cadet PDC........................................ 12.000 29.000 .......... 44.000 73.000 .......... 85.000
Kwajalein: Power Plant....................................... 12.600 36.000 .......... .......... 36.000 .......... 48.600
Chem Demil:
Umatilla Facility............................................ 50.950 9.000 .......... .......... 9.000 187.000 6.377
Pine Bluff Facility.......................................... 16.500 72.000 17.000 .......... 89.000 134.000 20.500
Aberdeen Facility............................................ 26.500 58.500 85.000 14.500 158.000 .......... 184.500
Newport Facility............................................. 27.500 60.750 87.500 13.800 162.050 .......... 189.550
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals..................................................... 293.250 189.500 72.300 555.050 .......... .......... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $13 million was appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
\2\ $8 million was appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
\3\ $20 million was appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
Now, I will explain our Army Family Housing request.
army family housing
No single quality of life component matches the importance of
proper housing for Army soldiers and 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 we ask them
about their quality of life. Out-of-pocket expenses for soldiers living
off post in the U.S. are approximately 20 percent of the total cost of
their housing. Maintaining or finding adequate, quality housing for our
soldiers and families is one of the Army's continuing challenges.
In an effort to manage our installation family housing program in a
more business-like manner, the Army implemented the Business Occupancy
Program. Under the terms of 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 their inventory. This
provides an incentive to more effectively and efficiently manage
occupancy, since installation funding is now directly related to the
number of units occupied. We have already seen an increase in occupancy
rates. Army-wide average occupancy has increased from 86 percent when
the program started in October 1995, to 89 percent at the end of
September 1997, a 3-percent increase in two years.
The authorities included in the 1996 Military Housing Privatization
Initiative [called Capital Venture Initiative (CVI) in the Army] offer
the best hope of revitalizing Army family housing and eliminating the
deficit in the United States. These authorities allow the Army to
leverage housing appropriated funds and owned assets to gain private
sector capital and expertise to operate, manage, repair, improve, and
construct family housing. Fort Carson, CO, is the Army's first CVI
project. Our plan is to use these authorities wherever feasible and
economical in the United States. We are applying lessons learned from
the Fort Carson project in the development of 26 additional family
housing privatization projects. However, CVI authorities do not apply
overseas, nor could they because we do not own the land or houses to
leverage as we do in the United States. Therefore, we have submitted a
legislative proposal to pilot an Overseas Housing Authority (OHA) to
help revitalize our overseas family housing. Analyses show that both of
these efforts, CVI and OHA, can solve our Army family housing problems
within 5-10 years, compared to 130-plus years under the current system.
Our fiscal year 1999 request for appropriations is $1,208,173,000,
while the authorization request is $1,209,812,000. This difference is
due to funding several projects with prior year funds. Our request
includes $103,440,000 for a modest replacement construction program for
units no longer economical to revitalize, a modest revitalization
program for our aging housing inventory, and a planning and design
program for future construction projects. Funding for the annual costs
of operating, maintaining, and leasing family housing in fiscal year
1999 is $1,104,733,000.
Table 4 summarizes each of the categories of the Army Family
Housing program.
TABLE 4.--ARMY FAMILY HOUSING, FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization Appropriations
Facility category ---------------------------------------------------
Amount Percent Amoutn Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Construction............................................ 70,100,000 6 68,461,000 6
Post Acquisition Const...................................... 28,629,000 2 28,629,000 2
Planning and Design......................................... 6,350,000 <1 6,350,000 <1
Operations.................................................. 184,254,000 15 184,254,000 15
Utilities................................................... 250,407,000 21 250,407,000 20
Maintenance................................................. 467,914,000 39 467,914,000 39
Leasing..................................................... 202,155,000 17 202,155,000 17
Debt........................................................ 3,000 <1 3,000 <1
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 1,209,812,000 ........ 1,208,173,000 ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whole neighborhood revitalization
The fiscal year 1999 request continues the initiative the Congress
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 (WNR) 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 adequacy standards. The combination of
replacement and post-acquisition construction in fiscal year 1999
provides for annual worldwide investment that is on an average 130-year
replacement cycle, versus a 35-year replacement cycle, based on
industry standards. The fiscal year 1999 Construction Program includes
about $4,000,000 from unobligated prior year funds.
New construction.--The fiscal year 1999 new construction program
provides WNR projects that replace 506 units at four locations where
there is a continuing requirement for the housing and it is more
economical to replace than renovate current housing. 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 community.
Post acquisition construction.--The Post Acquisition Construction
program is an integral part of our housing revitalization program. In
fiscal year 1999, we are requesting funds for improvements to 514 units
at two locations in the United States and two locations in Europe. Also
included within the scope of each of these projects are efforts to
improve supporting infrastructure and energy conservation, and to
eliminate environmental hazards.
operations and maintenance
The operations, utilities, maintenance and leasing programs
comprise the majority of the fiscal year 1999 budget request. The
requested amount of $1,104,733 for 1999 is nearly 92 percent of the
family housing request. This budget provides for the Army's annual
expenditures for operations, municipal-type services, furnishings,
maintenance and repair, and utilities. The level of funding is below
the level needed to protect the Army's investment of the family housing
inventory.
The family housing utilities request reflects our success in
reducing our energy consumption and supports the Army's energy
conservation goal of a one and one half percent reduction in overall
facility energy requirements.
leasing
The leasing program provides another way of adequately housing our
military families. We are requesting $202,155,000 in fiscal year 1999
to fund existing Section 2835 project requirements, temporary domestic
leases in the United States, and nearly 10,497 units overseas.
The Army's total leasing program request supports approximately
14,600 units in fiscal year 1999 to satisfy requirements in the United
States, Europe, Korea, and other locations. These are our high priority
locations where providing flexible family housing solutions is
essential to improving the quality of life of our families.
real property maintenance
The third area in the facilities arena is the Real Property
Maintenance (RPM) program. RPM is the primary account in installation
base support funding responsible to maintain 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 a life, health, or safety deficiency. 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 program, there are two areas which I would like to
highlight. The first is our Barracks Upgrade Program (BUP). At the
completion of the fiscal year 1998 program, 48 percent of our
requirement for permanent party barracks will meet or approximate the
new Department of Defense (DOD) 1+1 barracks standard, 27 percent must
still be revitalized or replaced through our Whole Barracks Renewal
Program using Military Construction funding, while 25 percent can be
modified to an approximate 1+1 standard using RPM resources. In fiscal
year 1998, Congress provided the Army an additional $100 million in
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense (QOLE,D) funding for repair of
facilities key to improving the quality of life of our soldiers. We
have allocated all of these funds to bring more of our VOLAR era
barracks inventory to the 1+1 standard within the Barracks Upgrade
Program. Starting this fiscal year and through the completion of the
program, the Army committed approximately $150 million per year to
continue the efforts to upgrade our single soldiers' quality of life.
The Barracks Upgrade Program, when combined with the Whole Barracks
Renewal program, is reducing significantly the amount of time required
to improve the living conditions of our single soldiers to the current
DOD standard. We expect that all barracks for permanent party soldiers
will have been revitalized or replaced by the year 2012.
The second area is our long range strategy to provide reliable and
efficient utility services at our installations. As discussed earlier,
privatization 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 eleven utility systems to the private sector at nine
installations. Additionally, seventeen other utility systems are
currently in the process of being transferred and over one hundred
systems are currently under study for privatization. The second part of
the strategy is the utilities modernization program to help upgrade
those utility systems that will not be privatized such as central
heating plants and distribution systems. We have requested $60,000,000
for utility modernization projects in fiscal year 1999. 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 to assist us in reducing our $1
billion utility bill.
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. The fiscal year 1999
request is for appropriations of $12,800,000, along with a companion
request for authorization and authorization of appropriations for the
same amount.
The request will provide assistance to personnel at approximately
25 locations 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, our fiscal year 1999 budget for military construction
and Army family housing is an essential part of the total Army program
to balance 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 to 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 1999 request for authorization of appropriations
for Military Construction Army and Army Family Housing is
$1,999,049,000 and $12,800,000 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 soldiers and their
families, and meet statutory and regulatory requirements. This request
will also provide for family housing leasing and operation and
maintenance of the current inventory. 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 year 1999.
The Guard's fiscal year 1999 request for military construction
appropriation of $47,675,000 includes $42,581,000 for major
construction, $4,548,000 for planning and design and $546,000 for
unspecified minor construction. The companion request for authorization
and authorization of appropriations is the same as the appropriation
request.
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. The
National Guard is manned with over 364,000 quality soldiers in over
2,700 communities nationwide.
Greater reliance is placed on this community based component of
America's Army. We are fully engaged in joint operational support,
nation building, military-to-military contact with emerging
democracies, and preventive deterrence to hedge against aggression. The
Army National Guard's equally vital role is providing assistance and
support to our 54 States and Territories during domestic and community
support missions. We have been an active participant in every major
American conflict around the world. Last year we deployed 25,000
soldiers to 70 different countries, as well as provided 285,000 Federal
man-days of emergency services to the States.
facilities strategy
The goal of the Army National Guard is to provide state-of-the-art,
community based facilities that facilitate communications, operations,
training and equipment maintenance in which to station, sustain, and
deploy the force. By the end of the decade, our objective is to have
the maximum number of units that are manned, trained, equipped,
resourced and missioned for Federal as well as State and/or domestic
requirements.
In order for the Army National Guard to ensure that it will
continue to be able to provide the forces needed to meet the needs of
the community, the Army, and the nation, it is a necessity that we have
quality facilities. To reach this goal, we intend to design, implement,
operate, and maintain our facilities using private sector standards,
21st century technologies, and commercially available, off-the-shelf
facilities software. This is a comprehensive program including but not
limited to:
Education.--An extensive training program for our facilities
managers' career field has been established. We want to ensure that
these soldiers have the tools to meet our objectives.
Master planning.--Six States adopted a new Statewide master
planning initiative in fiscal year 1997. This system will provide the
user with a spatial decision support system which uses a geographic
information system and computer automated design technology. An
additional 12 States are planned to be on-line each year until all 54
States and Territories have completed their Master Plans by 2001.
Energy management.--State-of-the-art energy efficient facilities
are being constructed. We are also upgrading existing facilities to
current energy efficiency standards by funding energy projects from
current operating funds, using Energy Savings Performance contracts,
developing Energy Conservation Investment Program projects, and
implementing energy improvement projects funded by utility companies.
We manage an active energy audit program performing audits in seven to
eight States per year. The plan calls for each State to train an energy
manager and empower them to execute an aggressive energy management
program.
Data analysis.--In fiscal year 1997 we began the implementation of
computerized systems that allowed cost analysis of budget projections.
The end product is an Army National Guard installations program focused
on the future, investing to provide efficiencies and not just to repair
past mistakes. This is reflected in our fiscal year 1999 budget
request.
military construction, army national guard (mcng)
Within our military construction request, we focus on six
investment areas: ranges, training facilities, maintenance support
shops, readiness centers, minor construction, and planning and design.
These projects are mission focused and are centered on the quality of
life of our soldiers.
mission facilities
In fiscal year 1999 there are nine mission facility projects,
totaling $42,581,000. Essential mission facilities include several
initiatives such as readiness centers, training site modernization and
maintenance facility revitalization.
Training site modernization.--Fiscal year 1999 continues the slow
process of adapting existing State operated training sites to training
strategies for the 21st century. 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.
Maintenance facility.--In fiscal year 1999 we have included two
revitalization projects, and one replacement project to continue the
revitalization of Army National Guard maintenance facilities. In
particular, we will replace a Combined Support Maintenance Shop (CSMS)
at Papago Park Military Reservation, Arizona. The current CSMS, built
in 1961, is one-third the size needed to accommodate the State's
military equipment. It also requires extensive upgrades to electrical
and mechanical systems. The construction of this facility will greatly
enhance the readiness posture of equipment in the State, and will
provide a safe working environment for employees. In addition, the
State, using their own funds, plans to convert the existing facility
into a Readiness Center for one of their maintenance units.
Readiness centers.--A critical focal point of Quality of Life is
the Readiness Center. This is where America may have its first and only
exposure to the military. The Readiness Center of yesterday, today and
tomorrow is a place where the public seeks and finds refuge in times of
need. Therefore, in fiscal year 1999, we have included in our budget
request three readiness centers, two new facilities and one addition/
alteration, totaling $11,124,000.
budget request analysis
This MCNG budget request includes a request for appropriation and
authorization of $47,675,000 in fiscal year 1999.
The fiscal year 1999 appropriations request, by investment focus,
is shown in Table 1:
TABLE 1.--INVESTMENT FOCUS APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Appropriations Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranges......................................... $1,023,000 2.2
Maintenance Support Shops...................... 24,262,000 50.9
Readiness Centers.............................. 11,124,000 23.3
Training Facilities............................ 6,172,000 12.9
Minor Construction............................. 546,000 1.2
Planning and Design............................ 4,548,000 9.5
------------------------
Total.................................... 47,675,000 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 shows the fiscal year 1999 distribution of the
appropriation request:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project--Fiscal year
Installation/State 1999 funded program Budget amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major construction.. $42,581,000
===============
PHOENIX, AZ....................... COMBINED SUPPORT 10,640,000
MAINTENANCE SHOP.
CAMP DODGE, IA.................... TNG SITE, FUEL 737,000
DISPENSING FAC.
GOWEN FIELD, ID................... READINESS CENTER, 4,224,000
ADD/ALT.
GREENVILLE, KY.................... WESTERN KENTUCKY TNG 5,435,000
SITE, PH IV/V.
CAMP RIPLEY, MN................... RANGE, MULTI-PURPOSE 1,023,000
MACHINE GUN/SNIPER
(RETS).
BISMARCK, ND...................... ARMY AVIATION
SUPPORT FACILITY/
READINESS CENTER
ADD/ ALT........... 6,240,000
LEXINGTON, OK..................... ARMY AVIATION 7,382,000
SUPPORT FACILITY
EXPANSION.
POWHATAN, VA...................... READINESS CENTER.... 2,435,000
KINGWOOD, WV...................... READINESS CENTER.... 4,465,000
VARIOUS........................... UNSPECIFIED MINOR 546,000
CONSTRUCTION.
VARIOUS........................... PLANNING AND DESIGN. 4,548,000
---------------
TOTAL FUNDED.. 47,675,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
real property maintenance
The States will continue to prudently manage their existing
facilities, despite the challenges of age and shrinking real property
support funding. They are committed to executing the programs you
authorize as expeditiously and as efficiently as possible. Facilities
built during the last decade have played major roles 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
$18 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 almost half of these 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 those reimbursed 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.
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 with 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. We look forward to working with you this year.
part iii--military construction, army reserve
Next, I will present the Army Reserve's military construction
budget request for fiscal year 1999. This budget provides essential
military construction resources to address the Army Reserve's highest
priority projects, and it will allow the Army Reserve to continue to
successfully operate in a resource constrained environment.
The Army Reserve, which is on duty in 80 countries around the
world, is 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 71 percent of the
Reserve Component forces and 29 percent of the total United States
Armed Forces Operation Joint Guard. In addition to relying on Reserve
forces to deploy and support major worldwide contingencies and
warfighting, 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 domestic missions into the 21st century. To
ensure readiness, we must have the minimum essential facilities
resources in 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. It occupies
about 1,300 facilities, consisting of more than 2,800 buildings and
structures that have an average age of about 33 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 its stewardship responsibilities
toward the facilities inventory, the Army Reserve has adopted
priorities and strategies that guide the application of resources. The
essence of our program is straightforward: to provide essential
facilities to improve readiness and quality of life, to preserve and
enhance the Army's image across America, and to 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 the
Army Reserve facilities and installations in a resource constrained
environment rests on six fundamentals: eliminate 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
quite different from those of the Active Army. Army Reserve forces are
community based, not installation based, requiring that forces and
facilities be dispersed 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. Facilities must be located in the communities
where soldiers live and where their units are based. 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. Reserve
operated installations support mission essential training for thousands
of soldiers 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
quality of life 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 request for fiscal
year 1999 addresses 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 continues to shape itself
for the 21st century. One of these changes is the growing 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 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 year 1999
includes two projects at Fort McCoy, WI, one of the Army's 15 power
projection platforms. These projects directly support training and
readiness of the force, aircraft operations and safety, and improved
quality of life for hundreds of students who train at the Army Reserve
Readiness Training Center each year. The Army Reserve is also assuming
greater responsibilities nationwide in managing base support operations
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 1999 includes requests for appropriation and authorization of
appropriations of $71,287,000. This budget request for fiscal year 1999
provides essential funds for our highest priority requirements, and it
is in line with our commitment to operate successfully in an
environment of constrained resources. It also reflects the realities of
maintaining near term force readiness and still meeting critical
requirements for military construction that directly support 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
1999, our requests for appropriation and authorization of
appropriations of $71,287,000, will fund the construction of three new
Army Reserve centers in Michigan, Utah, and Virginia to accomplish
essential facility replacements; an Aviation Support Facility in
Virginia that supports new mission requirements; revitalization of
existing facilities in Colorado, Massachusetts, and New York; purchase
of an existing leased facility in Ohio; land acquisition to support a
future project; and two projects at Fort McCoy, WI: construction of a
crash rescue station at the airfield and construction of an improved
machine gun range.
(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 1999 to include no funds
for unspecified minor construction.
(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 request for planning and
design is $7,368,000 for fiscal year 1999.
Real property maintenance (RPM).--Another important issue that is
directly linked to the Army Reserve's overall ability to be good
stewards of its facilities and installations, is that of funding for
real property maintenance (RPM). Although provided separately by the
Operation and Maintenance Army Reserve (OMAR) appropriation, these
funds complement military construction (MILCON) funds to round out the
Army Reserve's total resources to manage its 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 our valuable facilities and infrastructure.
We are applying available resources to only the most critical
maintenance and repair needs. We solicit your support of real property
maintenance as an essential adjunct of construction.
summary
In summary, as the national military strategy has changed to meet
the challenges of the next century, the Army Reserve will grow in its
importance and relevance in the execution of that strategy. The men and
women of the Army Reserve have consistently demonstrated that they can
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
Our facilities strategy strives to meet the needs of today's
soldiers while also focusing on the changes required to support the
Army of the 21st century. To do this we identify the amount of
infrastructure we need in order to focus our resources on modernization
and readiness. The Army requires fewer facilities than we are currently
maintaining. We must reduce the total cost required to support our
facilities and manage and maintain our real property inventory. The
principal way this is being accomplished is through BRAC. Although the
Army is reducing its infrastructure considerably, more reductions are
necessary. Therefore, we support the Secretary of Defense's request for
two additional rounds of BRAC in 2001 and 2005.
The BRAC process has proven to be the only viable method to
identify and dispose of excess facilities. The Army is in the process
of closing 112 installations and realigning an additional 27 from the
first four rounds of BRAC. We are now in the final third of the 13 year
process to implement these first four rounds. 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 made available to support 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 round, BRAC 95, ahead of schedule, disposing of
property at closed bases, cleaning up contaminated property and
assisting communities with reuse.
In fiscal year 1999, we will begin to focus almost exclusively on
BRAC 1995, the last of the four rounds, along with the conveyance of
properties to local communities for conversion to non-military reuse.
The fiscal year 1999 budget is important because it contains the
resources needed for major construction actions and unit movements, and
allows us to increase our focus on environmental restoration and
property transfer. Therefore, we request that the Congress appropriate
and authorize $489,222,000 in support of the Army's fiscal year 1999
BRAC program.
The Army is accelerating all BRAC actions to obtain savings and
return assets to the private sector as quickly as available resources
will allow. We completed the remainder of all the five closures and
realignment actions approved by the 1991 Commission during fiscal year
1997. In fiscal year 1998, we are closing Stratford Army Engine Plant,
Connecticut; Fort Ritchie, MD; Fort Missoula, MT; and Fort Indiantown
Gap, PA. We completed the disestablishment and realignment of the
Aviation and Troop Command from St. Louis, MO, to four other locations
in December 1997. The fiscal year 1999 budget supports the movement of
the military police and chemical schools to Fort Leonard Wood, MO, and
the closure of Fort McClellan, AL. The Army also plans to close East
Fort Baker, CA, and move the Concepts Analysis Agency from leased space
in Bethesda, MD, to a new facility at Fort Belvoir, VA. These actions
will nearly complete all planned closure actions except for the six
that are scheduled for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
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. The Army currently has 100,000
soldiers stationed overseas, and deployed another 31,000 during fiscal
year 1997 on operational missions and training exercises. 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.
During 1997, the Army reached agreements to convey properties to
local communities at four BRAC installations that will result in
immediate property reuse. The Army is using all of the conveyance
options, to include interim leasing at Letterkenny Army Depot, economic
development conveyance at the Materials Technology Lab in Watertown,
MA, and Detroit Arsenal, and negotiated sale at Fort Sheridan, IL. In
many instances, employment levels are expected to exceed those of the
Army when the bases were active.
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, 10 have been returned. The total number of
overseas sites announced for closure or partial closure is 664 (see
Table 1). 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.
Table 1
Installations
Germany........................................................... 573
Korea............................................................. 29
France............................................................ 21
Panama............................................................ 13
Netherlands....................................................... 6
Turkey............................................................ 6
United Kingdom.................................................... 5
Greece............................................................ 4
Italy............................................................. 4
Belgium........................................................... 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 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
United States. 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 returns it to the
host nation. If we reduce operations, we end up keeping some of the
facilities.
base realignment and closure program status
The Army has completed all realignments and closure actions from
the BRAC 88 and BRAC 91 rounds. The work of property disposal and
environmental remediation at 18 installations will continue for several
years. The Army continues to work with local communities to promote
economic redevelopment in disposal of these properties. Introduction of
economic development conveyances and interim leasing has resulted in
accelerating property reuse and jobs creation at installations that
were previously unavailable pending completion of environmental
restoration efforts.
The Army continues to accelerate the implementation of the BRAC 93
and BRAC 95 rounds. BRAC 93 is complete, with the exception of the
realignment of Fort Monmouth, which is scheduled for fiscal year 1998.
The Army is in the third year of the implementation of BRAC 95, after
which 19 of the 29 closure and four of 11 realignment actions will be
complete. Interim leases and economic development conveyances are
making properties at these installations available to the local
communities earlier in the process. The Army is currently working with
local communities at Letterkenny Army Depot and Detroit Arsenal to make
industrial facilities available for reuse in 1998. The former
Fitzsimons Army Medical Center is now being converted to a University
Medical Center. Negotiations and required environmental restoration
continue at other installations, and additional conveyances are likely
in the near future.
For the period 1989 through 1997, the Army has spent $3,570,251,000
to implement the first four rounds of BRAC. The Army is realizing
$649,951,000 in annual recurring savings in fiscal year 1998, and has
realized a total of $2,556,807,000 in savings during the implementation
period through the end of fiscal year 1997. Upon implementation of all
actions from the first four BRAC rounds the Army will achieve annual
savings of $949,000,000 beginning in fiscal year 2002.
The Army has completed environmental actions at 747 of a total of
1,943 environmental cleanup sites through fiscal year 1997.
Environmental restoration efforts were complete at 63 installations
through fiscal year 1997, out of a total of 122 installations. The Army
remains focused on supporting environmental cleanup actions required to
support property reuse and will continue to fund environmental cleanup
actions that are required in support of property transfer and reuse.
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. Continuation of
accelerated implementation requires the execution of the fiscal year
1999 program as planned and budgeted. We request your support by
providing the necessary BRAC funding for fiscal year 1999.
We remain committed to promoting economic redevelopment at our BRAC
installations. We are supporting early reuse of properties through
economic development conveyances, as well as the early transfer and
interim leasing options made possible by Congress last year. Real
property assets are being conveyed to local communities, permitting
them to quickly enter into business arrangements with the private
sector. Local communities, with the Army's support and encouragement,
are working to develop business opportunities that result in jobs and
tax revenues. The successful conversion of former Army installations to
productive use in the private sector is something all of us can be
proud of.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
With regard to the time of the----
Senator Stevens. I will just submit my questions.
Senator Burns. In our progress, we have to visit a couple
of installations. No. 1, you are to be commended for this
commitment to this housing and decent place to live.
When we talk about the year 2010, I can remember when the
year 2000 sounded like it was a long way off, and it is on our
heels right now and 2010 is not all that far off.
barracks
Is the program already in place that we get these projects
on line and authorized through the Armed Services Committee?
And are we ready to go and is that process already in place?
Ms. Moore. Are we talking about barracks?
Senator Burns. That is right. These living facilities. I am
sorry.
Ms. Moore. The Army's investment would have to be about
$280 million per year through that period of time, and the Army
leadership is committed to that, sir. We plan to include
barracks in our budget request until this program is bought
out.
one plus one
Senator Burns. We are having some experience now with one
plus one living. There are some places that have it. You might
ask your Army colleagues.
I come from a different generation and I would imagine all
of us did. When I was enlisted and we had the old barracks, the
only private area you had was probably where you laid your head
down on your rack and your footlocker. That was the only
private property we had, so to speak. But there was a lot of
camaraderie too in barracks style living. You were an outfit.
One plus one. Is it working to really bring an outfit
together? Are we all thinking as one? Not only are we looking
where we all look like one, but are we thinking fire teams,
missions? Has it done anything to affect the team work of the
people in their missions?
Ms. Moore. We believe it has, sir. We get enthusiastic
responses from our soldiers in those places where we have
completed the one plus one. Mostly they say it is the best
thing that ever happened to them, other than a pay raise.
Maybe General Whaley can address that.
General Whaley. Mr. Chairman, I am General Whaley, your
Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management.
I have visited many of the same installations you have. I
also enlisted in the Army in 1965, so I know what----
Senator Burns. Well, you are just----
General Whaley. A young guy.
Senator Burns. I know, you are just a young fellow. What
turned your hair so white is what I want to know. [Laughter.]
General Whaley. Sir, the soldiers love it, so do
noncommissioned officers and their company, battalion, and
brigade division leadership.
Your concerns are the same as the Chief of Staff of the
Army. Within 2 weeks of taking this job that I currently have,
the Chief of Staff of the Army brought me into his office. He
had already talked to all his senior leadership across the
Army, and continues to do so with the Sergeant Major of the
Army, that unit cohesion, first line leadership, and the
culture of the Army will not change. Unit cohesion will be
maintained. Leadership will be in the barracks, live in the
barracks, and fire team, squad, and platoon integrity will be
maintained. In fact, the new barracks give us an opportunity to
reinforce that in many ways with the company orderly room very
close by, central recreation areas and training areas that can
be used for training and recreation right there in the unit
area, much like the unit day room used to be.
The Chief and the entire Army leadership has taken this as
an opportunity to reinforce your concerns. Soldiers like it
because they are different than our generation. A 1997 survey
said their No. 1 priority was to have a level of privacy that
is reflected in the standard that you have approved and so
aptly and powerfully supported. Every feedback I get is
positive.
Senator Burns. If you hear along that line and you talk to
the soldiers that are on the line, after we get by the issue of
a level of some privacy, what is their next concern?
General Whaley. With barracks, sir?
Senator Burns. Well, with the conditions as they exist in a
military installation.
General Whaley. Well, I think that our survey showed that
right after that is medical care, retirement benefits, and
quality of life for soldiers and families.
quality of life
Senator Burns. And that quality of life. Now, we know that
we have many more married soldiers now than probably in the
history of the Army. Of course, I was making $62 a month. I was
ready to go out and take on the world. I probably had more
money in my pocket in those days than I have now, but I was a
skillful poker player. [Laughter.]
Anyway, is it recreation areas? Is it physical education or
physical facilities, like basketball, handball, stuff like
that? Now, I am speaking of the single soldier. What other
facilities do they mention as would be desirable in their wants
for their quality of life?
General Whaley. Sir, I will get that in definitive detail
in rank order for you for the record. My recollection is that
the recreation facilities are high on their list, to include
physical fitness facilities.
[The information follows:]
Single Soldiers' Facilities Concerns
The Community and Family Support Center provides input into the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel's semiannual Sample Survey of
Military Personnel (SSMP) to get feedback from single soldiers about
the use and importance of morale, welfare and recreation (MWR)
programs. The latest findings from the Spring 1997 SSMP show that, of
23 MWR programs listed, single soldiers ranked (in priority order) the
following as most important: fitness center, gym/playing courts/fields,
library services, automotive shop, outdoor recreation areas, and
swimming pools.
Ms. Moore. Physical fitness centers are high on their
priority list, especially those people that are overseas.
Senator Burns. How do those priorities change with our
married personnel?
General Whaley. Sir, I think there are some that are common
with the priorities for married personnel. Those are retirement
and medical. The married population will go to commissaries,
PX's, and child care obviously before our single soldiers, but
those are generally the highest priorities for both categories.
capital venture initiative
Senator Burns. With the housing privatization, is that
moving to your satisfaction, or leveraging the dollars in the
private sector, is that moving at expected pace or are we
behind?
Ms. Moore. Well, it took a while to get to contract award
on the Fort Carson project because it was all new to us. It was
new to everyone, including the financial community and the
contractors.
Senator Burns. I thought Secretary Perry, when he put this
idea forward, was very innovative about a new approach.
Ms. Moore. As always, with a new initiative you have
problems with OMB and how to score projects. That held things
up for a while. But we are now ready to award a contract at
Fort Carson, and within 60 days we plan to have a lessons
learned conference where we will invite everybody to sit down
and review the issues all the way from development through
contract award--through procurement and contract award.
We are currently working on Fort Hood and Fort Stewart.
Those installations have been approved to develop requests for
proposal [RFP's]. We are expecting to award those contracts in
the year 2000. We will have 2 years of operational experience
from Fort Carson by the time we award those contracts. So, we
hope the others will go much quicker. There will be about 24
housing projects in the pipeline, in the planning process, that
are being planned simultaneously.
Senator Burns. What kind of mortgage guarantees are the
most frequently offered in these kind of arrangements?
Ms. Moore. Sometimes there are no mortgage guarantees
depending on whether we, for instance, trade land for the
project. If financing is involved, a partial mortgage guarantee
would be granted of up to 80 percent of the amount of dollars
involved. That guarantee would only be paid, sir, in the event
of something that the Department of Defense or the Army brought
about such as a case closure, a drawdown in numbers of troops,
or large scale deployment that would take people away from the
local community.
Senator Burns. Do you want to follow up on that?
Senator Stevens. Madam Secretary, this is a 50-year
contract at Fort Carson?
Ms. Moore. Yes, sir; with a 25----
Senator Stevens. I just checked with my memory bank here,
Ms. Ashworth. Sid tells me that Fort Carson was on a projected
closure list twice in the past.
Ms. Moore. That is possible, sir. It has not been on a
list, to my knowledge, since we have had the base closure
legislation.
Senator Stevens. No; but it was being reviewed for base
closure.
Now, as you say, if the base is closed or there is a
substantial reduction in deployment to the base, that
accelerates this contract and requires an upfront payment. Is
that right?
Ms. Moore. Yes, sir; it would.
Senator Stevens. How did the OMB score that?
General Whaley. Sir, I believe that is part of the mortgage
guarantee piece that is in there and scored according to risk,
that is my understanding. In every installation it would be
scored essentially the same way I believe.
Now, the other piece is that each installation will be
taken separately, not necessarily from a BRAC perspective, but
from the economics presented by that installation in its unique
location.
Senator Stevens. I should think that one of the criteria
should be the cost of the current operation and Government
management as opposed to the cost of private sector bid. Is
that one of the factors now? Do you look at the cost of the
operation to determine which areas are going to be privatized?
I am looking for the criteria.
If Fort Carson was suspect before, it is obviously going to
be on the list in 2001 or 2003, not necessarily closed, but it
is going to be reviewed. One of the costs associated with
closing it then would be the cost of paying off the housing.
So, if I wanted to prevent a base from being closed, I would
get it privatized.
Ms. Moore. The 801 housing built prior to this initiative
falls into that category also, sir. It does create a problem
when you are trying to close a base.
Senator Stevens. I am just looking at the equity of what
bases they close and what bases will not be closed because this
will be a deterrent against closing any base which would
require upfront costs through the total payout of the
privatized contracts. I would like to run some numbers on that.
Thank you very much.
Senator Burns. That is the reason I asked you about the
loan guarantees or the mortgages, what kind of a situation are
we getting ourselves in because if we owned those homes
outright, even though we would have to pay them off or
whatever, they would still have commercial value. So, most of
that cost could be saved. I am just wondering about what kind
of a situation. That is the reason I asked you about those loan
guarantees.
I understand Fort Carson was on that, and now there is talk
of more.
environmental cleanup
Now, what concerns me with this particular committee is the
obligation that we have there because you couple that with the
possibility of fully one-third of the military construction
budget is in the area of environmental cleanup, this does not
leave us a lot of room to do some things that we want to do for
the present maintenance of our infrastructure or to expand that
infrastructure. That is why it is going to be very, very
difficult when you are operating with less money to make some
of these things.
Let us move on now. We may have to sit down with Senator
Murray and spend 1 hour going over some of these things and
talk about that particular area before we get to the final
appropriation. Those two areas really do concern me because we
have obligations in the environmental cleanup part of it. I
think we have to some way or other take in consideration what
this facility is going to be used for and take our
environmental cleanup so it is acceptable to that particular
activity rather than trying to make it a day care center.
I would put you on notice that we are going to have
oversight hearings on environmental cleanup, and we want to
know where the money is going, how it is being spent, and to
what degree we have to take our facilities that we are turning
back into the private sector--how far we are going.
chemical demilitarization
Chemical demilitarization responsibility based on the
defense reform initiative and recommendation for funding for
the chemical demilitarization program was devolved from the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the
Army. A total of $125.3 million was transferred to the Army
Milcon budget in 1999 to assume funding responsibility for six
military construction programs that would fall into this
category.
I understand the decision to realign funding for chemical
demilitarization to the Army was made at the office. Do you
have any concerns about executing or the execution of that
program?
Ms. Moore. No, sir; the Army has been the executive agent
for the Chem Demil Program all along, so we will just continue
to execute as we have in the past. The funding will simply be
in the Army budget as opposed to in the Defense budget.
Senator Burns. What happens if this program progresses but
we find that we have a financial shortfall to complete the
mission? Will the Army be stuck with the bill? Will that have
to come from some other area of responsibility?
Ms. Moore. The Army would be responsible, sir, for any cost
overruns. It is a powerful incentive to contain the program
costs.
Senator Burns. I wonder what pocket I should put that in. I
have not figured it out.
army national guard milcon funding
On National Guard, Milcon funding, something we think has
been really overlooked on why we are doing what we are doing in
our specific States as far as National Guard is concerned. Do
you have any kind of figure you can give us for the backlog of
what we think is the requirements of Milcon funding for Army,
Army Reserve, and National Guard? Do we have a backlog? Can you
give us any idea of what that backlog might be so that we can
start making our plans accordingly?
Ms. Moore. General Squier.
General Squier. For the Army National Guard, yes, sir.
Our backlog for the military construction side of things is
about $2.5 billion of backlog requirements, Senator.
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to address the committee
here. The question you asked is what is our backlog. In total
if you look at our long-range plan for military construction
requirements for all the States and territories, is over 5
billion dollars' worth.
priority of requirements
Senator Burns. How do you assign the priorities?
General Squier. Priorities are established based on three
criteria. First is based on the readiness requirements of the
Army, based on our Federal mission and how they are prioritized
in the spectrum of warfighting. Then it is followed by the
adequacy of facilities that comes from our States and
territories, and then the priority established by our States
and territories.
Senator Burns. What are those priorities right now?
Basically what is your greatest need right now and where from
your standpoint?
General Squier. Our greatest need, sir, would be in our
infrastructure requirements for readiness centers to be able to
supply for our force to train to meet the requirements for the
Army's Federal mission.
Senator Burns. I know but is it the area of armor? Is it in
the area of infantry, aviation? If you have a spot right now
that you would like to put an emphasis on--and I know you
assess your strengths and your weaknesses almost on a daily
basis. It would be strange if you did not because you are all
the time assessing those. Where would you like to really place
some emphasis in the next 2 years?
General Squier. If I understand your question, I think I
would prefer to take that for the record and give you a little
more definition to it. I will tell you that the Army National
Guard is a balanced force. We have about 50 percent of the
Army's combat structures. We are heavy in combat which includes
armor and infantry, but we also have a wide variety of the
combat support, the aviation structure, which is a big piece
for us, and the combat service support. We make up about one-
third of the Army's requirements. So, before I could give you a
firm, what would be the best approach, I would like to look at
that in some detail and give it to you for the record.
Senator Burns. Fine.
[The information follows:]
Priorities for Army National Guard Military Construction
The priorities of the Army National Guard for military construction
are as stated in the Future Years Defense Plan. In establishing that,
we place primacy on the readiness requirements of the support units and
the condition of the current facilities. The resources available,
however, to place into the Future Years Defense Plan are very limited.
Assuming then, that we would be funded to meet our annual recurring
requirements for military constructions, the highest priority of the
Army National Guard in the next two years would be readiness centers.
They constitute just one half the projects we should be doing. About 30
percent of the remainder are training site projects (including ranges
and schoolhouses), and the balance are surface and air maintenance
facilities.
brac
Senator Burns. Madam Secretary, the Army plans to spend
almost $500 million to implement the recommendations of the
1995 BRAC Commission. How much more money will you need to
complete these closures and realignments?
Ms. Moore. The Army has programmed an additional $600
million between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 to
complete BRAC 1995. The amount of $450 million has been
programmed beyond fiscal year 2001 to continue the
environmental cleanup associated with those closures.
Senator Burns. Now, in 1999 the request will be allocated
for studies, cleanup, and restoration. What percent of the 1999
funding is in this request?
Ms. Moore. Sir, the environmental program is about 45
percent of the 1999 BRAC funding.
Senator Burns. It is still a going concern to me on how
those costs can get away. I guess we are concerned about that.
advanced appropriations
Also in the 1999 budget request, there are a number of
projects which are advanced appropriations being requested.
What exactly does that mean and how does it work?
Ms. Moore. Sir, Office of Management and Budget [OMB]
policy requires that projects in the President's budget must be
fully funded up front, and they have never allowed the
Department to do the incremental funding that your committee is
accustomed to doing. This year OMB relaxed the policy for the
first time. The advantage for the Army is that we do not have
to program the total cost of a project, such as the West Point
Physical Development Center, in the first year of the
authorization and appropriation. The major benefit is the
services can include more projects in the budget request. This
amounts to what you have called incremental funding as you have
programmed it here on the Hill. This is the first year OMB
allowed the services to do that. So, I guess the difference is
incremental funding is in the budget request this year instead
of having Sid take care of it over here.
prepared statement
Senator Burns. I look forward in sitting down with you and
the Generals, and we will have some more questions. Other
members of this committee will have questions. Senator Murray
will also have her questions. I would appeal to you to not only
answer her questions but also make those answers available to
the committee. She will also have an opening statement, and we
will make that a part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patty Murray
Thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you for arranging for this hearing
on our Army and Defense related agencies, Military Construction, BRAC
and Housing programs. The programs the subcommittee reviews 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 than increasingly confusing and
complicated world scene. Last year, your subcommittee was able to mark-
up and report its annual bill out, get it through the Senate and
conference and to the President's desk early in the process. The
committee attended to the needs of the country and added some $800
million in funding to the budget request. I would note that the
authorization bill, which was passed after our bill, in a reverse of
the process as we would like it to operate, substantially endorsed the
projects we added. I would also note that we have just completed a long
and drawn out process of overturning a rushed effort on the part of the
administration to subject some 38 of our projects to the line-item
veto. It is a testimony to the care and thoroughness of your efforts to
scrub and include only very worth projects that we had the support of a
large majority of our colleagues in both the Senate and the House in
supporting our work and rejecting the attempt of the administration to
strip out nearly $300 million worthy projects. I hope that we will not
have the same experience this year, and I expect that we will use the
same care in making any additions to the budget request and that we
will again have the support of our colleagues.
I note Mr. Chairman, that the budget request has again been rather
drastically cut below last year's appropriated amount, by some 15
percent or $1.4 billion below last year. If this were allowed to stand,
the reduction over the last 2 years, despite our additions last year
would amount to some 20 percent. Surely this reduction does not reflect
the overall funding for the defense budget, yet the programs that we
fund are crucial to maintaining a quality armed force, with adequate
infrastructure, housing, child care, barracks and other critical
programs. We will, I am sure, be taking a careful review of the
adequacy of the quality of life programs in this budget.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, we again face what appears to be an
invitation to rewrite the request for our Guard Forces. The request is
nearly the same as was requested last year, a request that we felt it
necessary to more than double. Specifically, we added some $57 million
to the budget request of $45 million last year, for a total of $102
million for the Guard. Yet, again, despite the sense that the budget
was not adequate to a healthy Guard Force, we are faced with an
identical situation. The request this year is about $47 million, which,
if we accepted it, would constitute the lowest appropriated amount for
the Guard in 20 years. It is obvious that we will have to review the
requests of Adjutant Generals across the country and, I would strongly
guess, substantially rewrite the budget.
As for housing and utility programs, the Department of Defense is
moving toward privatization, a trend which appears promising but as yet
not proven. Therefore, it is some cause for concern that the housing
budget for the Army is $130 million less than last year, or almost a
10-percent reduction. We have to exercise some care that the
privatization programs will, in fact, work before we reduce this vital
quality of life program area, since it not only affects the morale of
our forces, but retention and recruitment as well.
Again, I appreciate the efforts of the chairman to take the
interests of all Senators and on both sides of the aisle into account,
and I expect to have a continuation of the excellent working
relationship that we had last year again in considering the bill for
fiscal year 1999.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. So, we will leave this record open until you
have had the opportunity to respond to her questions and her
concerns.
That is about all the questions I have at this time. I have
been involved in everything else this morning except this, and
so I know I will think of something. As soon as the hearing is
over, I will think of a question I should have asked.
But, nonetheless, thank you for your testimony this morning
and responding to these questions. I look forward in working
with all of you, and if there is something you can think about,
why, make sure you bring it to our attention. We will certainly
work on it with you to make sure that it works.
Ms. Moore. Sir, I would like to provide you a little more
detailed answer on the CVI housing questions.
Senator Burns. OK.
Ms. Moore. I did not feel we handled that as well as we
could.
Additional committee questions
Senator Burns. Sure. Yes; those are things that are out
there and they pose a certain risk to us. So, at least we
should be aware of what we are getting into and make some sort
of an awareness of it.
Thank you for coming this morning. I appreciate that.
[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
whole barracks renewal initiative
Question. Madame Secretary, when do you anticipate that all of the
Army's barracks will be modernized to the ``1 Plus 1'' standard?
Answer. It is the Army's goal to complete funding barracks
modernization in the United States in fiscal year 2008, in Europe in
fiscal year 2010, and in Korea in fiscal year 2012.
Question. I notice that 42 percent of the barracks renewal projects
are scheduled to be built overseas. I have concerns that this number is
disproportionate since our Army is primarily. How can we be sure that
the barracks overseas are in worse shape than at installations like
Fort Sill or Fort Hood?
Answer. In terms of cost, the fiscal year 1999 construction budget
for barracks totals $306.8 million. Of this total budget, $63.9
million, 21 percent, is going to four locations in Korea and one
location in Germany. In order to ensure that funding for barracks
modernization goes first to the worst permanent party barracks, we
maintain installation level inventory data. Upon completion of the
fiscal year 1999 program, 61 percent of barracks in the United States
will meet or approximate the ``1 Plus 1'' standard, compared to only 42
percent overseas. We have carefully balanced mission and barracks
requirements during the project approval process.
housing privatization
Question. Ms. Moore, the Army appears to be headed for a fast-track
on family housing privatization with a very ambitious schedule. Can you
provide me further details on the time line?
Answer. A total of 27 U.S. installations have been identified to
date as Capital Venture Initiative (CVI) sites. Out of the 27, the full
AFH privatization project at Fort Carson is projected to be awarded May
1998, and OSD has approved Forts Hood, Stewart and Lewis for request
for proposal development. We hope to privatize to the maximum extent
possible all enduring Army family housing by 2003.
Question. How long will it take for the Army to review lessons
learned from the privatization initiative at Fort Carson?
Answer. We have been reviewing lessons learned from Fort Carson on
a continuing basis through every phase of the project. We are already
moving forward in a very deliberate fashion, taking advantage of the
lessons learned thus far. These lessons are being applied to the
development of projects at other participating installations. We intend
to host a lessons learned workshop within 60 days after the Fort Carson
award. As time progresses after the award of Fort Carson, we expect to
take advantage of any additional operational lessons learned as well as
those from other Services' experiences before our next project.
base realignment and closure funding
Question. Madame Secretary, in fiscal year 1999, the Army plans to
spend almost $500 million to implement the recommendations of the 1995
BRAC Commission. How much more money does the Army intend to spend in
the out years to complete these closures and realignments?
Answer. The budgeted amounts for completion of BRAC 95 closures and
realignments are $398 million in fiscal year 2000 and $201 million in
fiscal year 2001. This includes projected environmental costs of $295
million in fiscal year 2000 and $174 million in fiscal year 2001.
backlog of requirements for active army milcon
Question. What is the dollar backlog of requirements for Milcon
funding for the Active Army?
Answer. The backlog of requirements for MILCON funding for the
Active Army is approximately $2.4 billion, for the Army Reserve is $1.9
billion and for the Army National Guard is $2.5 billion.
real property maintenance backlog
Question. What is the backlog of requirements for real property
maintenance for the three Army components?
Answer. Based on the Army's Installation Status Report (ISR), the
estimated cost to remedy the deficiencies in all existing permanent and
semi-permanent facilities for the Active Army Component is $24.1
billion; for the Army National Guard is $6.8 billion, of which 73
percent is for federally funded property; and for the Army Reserve
Component is $1 billion.
active army milcon funding
Question. How does the Army assign priorities to Active Army,
Guard, and Reserve projects competing for the same scarce MILCON
dollars? Is there a MILCON allocation for each component?
Answer. There is no allocation of funds. Each component competes
for resources during the development of the Army's future years
program. The Army receives program and budget input from the
installations (or in the case of the National Guard, the States), the
major commands (MACOM's), and the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD). MACOM's provide construction priorities to Army Headquarters.
The Army develops the Future Years Defense Program and prioritization
list. The National Guard Bureau develops the Future Years Defense
Program and master prioritization list, as part of the Infrastructure
Requirement Plan. These prioritization lists compete for funding as
part of the Installations Program Evaluation Group, the Program Budget
Committee, and the Army Resource Board. This establishes the Army
MILCON funding stream over the near term years. The Army then defends
this budget through OSD and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
reviews and submits the resultant program to the Congress for approval.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Stevens
housing privatization
Question. What kind of mortgage guarantees are frequently offered
as part of a Capital Venture Initiative such as housing privatization?
Answer. The three types of mortgage guarantees are: (1) None--we do
not guarantee against any risk, (2) Partial--This is the one we will
normally use. This is called ``partial guarantee'' because we are
guaranteeing against partial risk. Partial risk, as used in the Army,
is defined as risk caused by the government. We are guaranteeing
against BRAC, downsizing, or extended troop deployments, and (3) Full--
guaranteed against all risks. We do not plan to use full guarantees.
The Army will provide a partial mortgage guarantee only at CVI
sites where it is necessary to attract private capital. These
guarantees will only cover events caused by the Department of Defense
or the Army such as base closure, downsizing of the force, or extended
deployments. These guarantees will cover no more than 80 percent of the
loan value or the remaining balance on the mortgage, whichever is less.
Under these guarantees, the developer must clearly show that it was one
of these three events that caused him/her to fail to meet mortgage
payments. Normal contingencies such as construction default or economic
downturns will not be covered by the Army and must be born by the
developer.
Question. How are these mortgage guarantees scored by OMB?
Answer. OMB scoring is based on the risk and recovery factors
identified for individual CVI locations. Some of the factors considered
are local market conditions, installation mission, and size and term of
loan.
Question. Why is the Army using such long-term leases, such as 50
years?
Answer. Feedback from the private sector indicates that a long-term
lease contributes to the financial viability of the project. In
general, the lease terms exceed the term of the outstanding mortgage
debt in order to allow for the debt to be retired from the cash flow of
the property.
Question. What happens when we have a future round of BRAC? How
much would it cost to get out of our mortgage obligation at Fort Carson
if Fort Carson should be on the base closure list?
Answer. If the developer could not rent the units on the open
market, the Army potentially would be responsible for the amount equal
to 80 percent of the value of the project or the amount of the
outstanding principal of the loan. Without knowing the conditions at
the time of such an event, the actual cost cannot be determined. The
amount will depend on the type of action (closure, realignment,
extended deployment), the remaining balance of the loan, and the market
conditions at the time of the event.
Question. How has the Army complied with bill language contained in
the Fiscal Year 1998 Milcon Appropriations Act with regards to loan
guarantees?
Answer. In accordance with the 1998 Milcon Appropriations Act, OSD
notified the Congress of the Fort Carson project on February 10, 1998.
OSD will continue to provide the information required in the bill
language when providing the Committees 60-day notification of any
future proposed solicitation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
service academies
Question. A major new funding request is for the revitalization of
the physical development center at West Point. It amounts to $12
million this year and an advance appropriation of $73 more million for
this multi-year project. The substantial improvements in the facilities
at the Naval Academy have been included in the Operations and
Maintenance account, not Milcon. What accounts for this disparity in
the treatment of the facilities at our service academies?
Answer. The Army project contains major portions of demolition, new
work, and upgrades in conjunction with the revitalization. This project
cannot be classified as maintenance and repair and must be funded with
MILCON.
housing
Question. Ms. Moore, you state in your testimony that adequate
housing continues to be the number one issue concerning the quality of
life for our soldiers, and for attracting and retaining dedicated
individuals to serve our nation, and is ``one of the Army's continuing
challenges.'' Yet your request is $300 million below last year's funded
amount. Can you outline for us the specific nature of the Army's
housing challenge, for both single soldiers and families?
Answer. The Army's challenge for married soldiers and their
families is to provide quality family housing by 2010. In the United
States, we plan to accomplish this by privatizing through the use of
Capital Venture Initiatives (CVI's) which will allow us to revitalize
our existing family housing and eliminate our deficit by 2010 versus
the current 130 year revitalization cycle. For family housing in
foreign countries, the CVI authorities do not apply. The Army does not
own the family housing in foreign areas and the Status of Forces
Agreement preclude U.S. companies from managing the housing. We are
working with OSD to seek a solution to the foreign area family housing
problem. Until these actions are fully implemented, we must continue to
sustain the houses and divest uneconomical or unrepairable and excess
inventory. The Army's challenge for single soldiers is to get them out
of gang latrines and substandard barracks. All permanent party barracks
will be modernized/constructed to the 1+1 standard in the United States
by fiscal year 2008; Europe by fiscal year 2010, and Korea by fiscal
year 2012. We plan to do this through a very aggressive investment
program which started in fiscal year 1994 and will continue through
fiscal year 2012.
Question. What is the deficit in housing for both groups?
Answer. The Army family housing deficit is 10,322. The troop
housing deficit, expressed in persons to be housed, is: 8,000--New
Construction; 14,000--Replacement and 41,000--Improvement.
Question. You are relying on the so-called ``Capital Venture
Initiative'' as the ``best hope of revitalizing Army family housing and
eliminating the deficit in the United States.'' While there is promise
in this concept, can you really afford to keep the funding levels at
some 5-10 percent below last year's level in the hope that this will
work as projected and solve our Army family housing problems ``within
5-10 years?''
Answer. We must keep funding at levels that will make our programs
successful. Funding is less than desired but adequate to keep units
open and safe until we complete our privatization contract awards by
2003.
adequacy of army guard funding
Question. Ms. Moore, I cannot help but notice that the funding
request for the Army National Guard, despite the high degree of
visibility it got last year, and the fact that Congress had to more
than double that funding, is back down to the same level in this year's
request. One result of the problems that we have noticed between the
regular Army and the Guard was the push to include a Guard general as
member of the Joint Chiefs. Can you outline to the subcommittee the
problems that you see in the regular Army-Guard relationship and what
steps have been taken, and need to be taken to make it healthy?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget increases funding for Military
Construction in the Army National Guard. The fiscal year 1999 Military
Construction funding request for the Army National Guard is larger than
the fiscal year 1998 request. Regarding your other concern, I can say
that Secretary Walker and General Reimer are personally committed to
spending more time on Reserve Component issues and meeting with Reserve
Component leaders on a regular basis. The Army is working to meet the
Secretary of Defense's goals of increasing the integration of the
Active Component (AC) and the Reserve Component (RC) to ensure a
seamless force. More than thirty major initiatives are underway toward
this end. In the area of installations, one of them is a Army National
Guard proposal called ``Fort State'', which seeks to leverage state
guard installations to meet Army requirements. The entire Army is
committed to improving the working relationships between the
components.
adequacy of army guard funding
Question. In your statement you characterize these relationships as
part of a ``total Army'' concept. You point out that in Bosnia, for
instance, approximately 25 percent of the Army forces come from the
Reserve and the Guard. How would you and your colleagues in the
department characterize the contributions of the Army Guard in Bosnia?
Answer. To date, 145 Army National Guard (ARNG) units (4,560
soldiers) have been mobilized for active duty under the Presidential
Selected Reserve Call-up (PSRC). Several ARNG units were specifically
tailored for deployment to theater. Notable examples are: (1) The
Target Acquisition Batteries from the 28th, 29th, 34th, 35th, 38th,
40th, 42d, and the 49th Divisions that provided counter-battery radar
coverage throughout Bosnia. (2) The Fire Support Elements from 28th
DIVARTY, PAARNG (1st Rotation); 101st FA Bn, MAARNG (2d Rotation); 1-
246th FA Bn, VAARNG (3d Rotation); and 49th DIVARTY, TXARNG (SFOR) each
provided support to the Nordic-Pole Brigade.
The Army National Guard has provided units and tailored units for
missions throughout Bosnia. They have filled all assigned missions.
Deployability rates were greater than 99 percent. Retention has not
been adversely affected and readiness remains constant for
participating units.
The use of ARNG units for Contingency Operations furthers the Total
Force policy and the integration of the Active Components and Reserve
Components.
milcon--army reserve
Question. I notice that you have increased the funding request for
the Army Reserve by 50 percent over the Department's request in last
year's request. I find it striking that this is in stark contrast to
essentially a very nominal increase in your request, some 4 percent for
the Guard over last year's requested amount. Why is there this
disparity? What factors have contributed to the disparity in these
funding requests?
Answer. It is not useful to compare Army Reserve MILCON funding to
Army National Guard funding. Prior to fiscal year 1998 each component
(USAR and ARNG) developed their programs internally. The Army Reserve
balanced its MILCON and other requirements within a specified funding
level following Army and DOD priorities. Beginning with preparation of
the fiscal year 1998 budget the USAR and ARNG participated in an
integrated budget process with the Active Army component. Budgeted
amounts are based on a variety of considerations including need,
priority, statutory and regulatory requirements, ability to execute a
funded level, and past performance in program management. Historically,
the USAR has received little additional support from Congress, yet has
executed very well. The table below ($000) illustrates that:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------- Totals
1995 1996 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pres. Budget............................................. \1\ 7,910 42,963 48,459 \2\ 39,11
2 138,444
Congress. Adds........................................... 49,460 29,765 7,084 27,115 113,424
------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 57,370 72,728 55,543 74,167 \1\ 251,8
68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The USAR had no projects meeting the Priority Investment Program guidelines.
\2\ The Budget Appropriation request reflects a $7,900 DOD directed reduction in appropriation.
Over the same period Army National Guard budget and congressionally
added projects totaled $179,000,000 and $440,051,000, respectively, for
a total of $619,051,000.
MILCON and facilities support requirements are a function of many
factors including force size and type. The Army Reserve has reduced its
end strength and force structure by 36 percent since fiscal year 1989
and has concurrently reduced its facilities inventory by 15 percent.
Conversely, the ARNG facilities inventory has grown by 6 percent, end
strength has been reduced by only 19 percent, and its force structure
has been reduced by only 12 percent during the same period.
army guard military-to-military contact with emerging democracies
Question. Can you tell the subcommittee more about the Guard
military-to-military program with emerging democracies? What countries
are involved, and how much is in the budget for this program?
Answer. The National Guard's portion of the Mil-to-Mil Program is
the State Partnership Program, which links U.S. states and emerging
democracies of Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia through ties
between the State Governor and State National Guard and the Ministry of
Defense and soldiers of the partner nation. The National Guard goal is
to demonstrate, through the example of the citizen-soldier, the role of
the military in a democratic society.
The State Partnership Program began in December 1992 when the
Chief, National Guard Bureau (NGB), led an interagency team to
Lithuania, the first visit in 50 years by an American official at this
level. U.S. Military Liaison Teams subsequently were placed in the
Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. These teams, with
National Guardsmen as chiefs, work with the host Ministries of Defense
to develop detailed plans of non-lethal cooperation. As a result, the
host militaries learn about the effectiveness of a competent
mobilization force under civilian control and in direct support to
civil authorities.
The purpose of this program is to build long standing institutional
affiliations and people-to-people relationships with nations, while
establishing democratic military organizations. By utilizing National
Guardsmen in their dual roles as citizen-soldiers, the partner nation's
military leaders are encountering highly trained and cost-effective
members of the United States Armed Forces. Guardsmen serve as role
models in making a compelling case for the ideals of democracy,
professionalism, and deference to civilian authority. They also
demonstrate the necessity and economy of Reserve Components with the
ability to react immediately to civil and military emergencies.
Guardsmen participate in Traveling Contact Teams that visit the
partner country to give detailed information on requested civil-
military topics such as air search and rescue, medical evacuation,
personnel, budgeting, administration, military law, professional
military education, disaster response planning, and family programs.
The Partner State hosts Familiarization Tours whereby Partner Country
personnel visit State facilities to see specific areas of interest.
The primary focus of the State Partnership Program is to convey and
reinforce in the partner nations the concept that the proper role of
the military in a democratic society is one of military subordination
to civilian authority and of military support to civil authorities.
Current Partner States and Countries in Eastern Europe and the
Former Soviet Union are:
Alabama-Romania
Arizona-Kazakhstan
California-Ukraine
Colorado-Slovenia
Georgia-Rep. of Georgia
Illinois-Poland
Indiana-Slovakia
Louisiana-Uzbekistan
Maryland-Estonia
Michigan-Latvia
Minnesota-Croatia
Montana-Kyrgyzstan
Nevada-Turkmenistan
North Carolina-Moldova
Ohio-Hungary
Pennsylvania-Lithuania
South Carolina-Albania
Tennessee-Bulgaria
Texas-Czech Republic
Utah-Belarus
Vermont-Macedonia
Associate Partner States are:
Nebraska-Czech Republic
New Jersey-Albania
Kansas-Ukraine
The program recently was formally expanded to the SOUTHCOM Theater
when NGB received approval to initiate several partnerships. Current
Partner States and Countries in SOUTHCOM are:
Missouri-Panama
Louisiana-Belize
Kentucky-Ecuador
West Virginia-Peru
Puerto Rico-Honduras (Pending)
Florida-Venezuela (Pending)
Associate Partner States are: New Hampshire-Belize.
Previously, National Guard units have participated in a multitude
of humanitarian and civic action projects supporting SOUTHCOM and U.S.
interests in Central and South America.
Partner Nations and States are currently developing partnership
events for the coming year and for out years. These events build on the
rapport that has been established. Some of the events currently being
discussed are multi-national disaster preparedness exercises, search
and rescue exercises, environmental operations, military justice, NCO
development programs and civil/military cooperative programs.
The participating nations have demonstrated their commitment to the
democratic process and their willingness to work with their partner and
others. In the summer of 1996, the Indiana and Alabama National Guards
participated in Exercise ``Cornerstone 96'' in Romania. This exercise
involved the rehabilitation of a military hospital, an international
daycare center, and an orphanage for HIV infected children. Exercise
``Baltic Challenge'' conducted in Latvia included participation from
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Michigan National Guard elements with their
partner nations Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Last quarter several
states participated in an earthquake preparedness exercise in
Macedonia.
Success of this program is also indicated by numerous requests for
information on the State Partnership Program by other nations.
Representatives from several African and Pacific Rim nations have
expressed interest in participating in the Partnership program.
The National Guard Bureau does not have a budget for the Mil-to-Mil
Contract Program. Our participation in the program supports the theater
Commander in Chief (CINC), who accesses various funding sources, such
as CINC Initiative Funding, Warsaw Initiative Funding, and Cooperative
Threat Reduction (CTR) money. The funding sources are used by all
branches of service (Active and Reserve) to fund events approved by the
Joint Staff, the Interagency Working Group, and the Theater CINC, in
coordination with the host country, and the Ambassador's Country plan.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Inouye
force integration
Question. In your view, how well integrated are the reserves with
the active force?
Answer. Secretary of Defense Cohen is committed to transforming our
military forces into an integrated force--a seamless Total Force--that
provides the U.S. the flexibility and interoperability necessary to
respond to the full range of military operations that we are called
upon to do in today's uncertain world. In his September 4, 1997 Total
Force memorandum to the Service Secretaries, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and Under Secretaries of Defense (attached) Secretary
Cohen stated, ``Today, I ask each of you to create an environment that
eliminates all residual barriers--structural and cultural--for
effective integration within our Total Force. By integration I mean the
conditions of readiness and trust needed for the leadership at all
levels to have well-justified confidence that Reserve Component units
are trained and equipped to serve as an effective part of the joint and
combined force within whatever timelines are set for the unit--in peace
and war.''
Secretary of Defense's memorandum identified four basic principles
required in order to achieve Total Force Integration. They include:
--Clearly understood responsibility for and ownership of the Total
Force by the senior leaders throughout the Total Force;
--Clear and mutual understanding on the mission for each unit--
Active, Guard and Reserve--in service and joint/combined
operations, during peace and war;
--Commitment to provide the resources needed to accomplish assigned
missions;
--Leadership by senior commanders--Active, Guard and Reserve--to
ensure the readiness of the Total Force
Post-Cold War military operations have demonstrated a dramatic
increase in reliance on the Guard and Reserve. Some examples include
the use of RC in the 1990-1991 Gulf War (over 250,000 Reservists); in a
wide range of peacetime operations and joint exercises to relieve TEMPO
stress on the Active force; and in support of Operation Joint Guard,
and other contingency operations. The Congress and the Governors have
been concerned over ``fair'' treatment of the RC. They have sought to
minimize RC cuts and expand RC roles in the National Military Strategy
in peacetime and wartime and in support to domestic emergencies.
We're working today to achieve fuller integration on the AC and the
RC. We're on the right course for the future.
Since his memorandum, the Department of Defense has continued its
proactive steps to further integration of the Active and Reserve
components. Examples that we're on the right course today include:
--Unprecedented RC involvement in DOD resource deliberations this
year.
--Expanded support to Chairman JCS by adding two full-time advisors
at the two-star level, one from the Guard and one from the
Reserve.
--Through the Defense Reform Initiative, introduced efficient
business practices such as the Defense Joint Military Pay
System under DFAS, and the future development of the Defense
Integrated Military Human Resources System.
--Issuing a Green ID card to replace the Red ID card previously
issued to Ready Reservists.
--Demonstrated commitment to integrating RC support to the nation by
aggressively pursuing DOD response to emerging terrorist threat
of domestic use of Weapons of Mass Destruction through Defense
Reform Initiative Directive # 25.
--National Guard and Reserve components will provide Consequence
Management support to aid the efforts of the local first
responders who are the key initial disaster response
individuals.
--DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs working to address RC
health care issues through the Reserve Component Health Care
Summit.
--Partnership for Peace (PfP) is a major NATO initiative, established
in 1994 and directed at increasing confidence and cooperative
efforts to reinforce European security. State Partnership for
Peace is the National Guard portion in this continuing role to
shape the international environment and provide stability to
emerging democracies in Eastern European.
The Services individually are working hard to further integration.
Some of these initiatives include:
--The Army is assessing more than 30 initiatives to improve active-
reserve force integration including integrated divisions,
conversion of combat structure to critically needed support
structure, use of reserve units in support of rotational
operational missions and addressing the growing threat to the
U.S. homeland.
--The Air Force is building on their success by expanding Guard/
Reserve missions, transferring force structure to the RC,
modernizing fighter units, enhancing RC participation in major
staffs, and others. The Air Force Chief of Staff commissioned a
special General Officer Steering Group to develop guiding
``Principles for Determining the Air Force Active/Reserve
Mix.''
--The Navy and Marine Corps are maximizing the contributions of their
RC's to relieve AC OPTEMPO and enhance utility for contingency
operations. Both services are conducting major assessment
efforts to maximize the contributions of their RC's and enhance
synergy with the AC.
Defense Agencies
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)
STATEMENT OF CAROLYN H. BECRAFT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PERSONNEL SUPPORT,
FAMILIES AND EDUCATION)
U.S. Special Operations Command
STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. GARY W. HECKMAN, DIRECTOR,
CENTER FOR COMMAND SUPPORT
Defense Logistics Agency
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK N. BAILLIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF RESOURCES, PLANNING, AND PERFORMANCE
DIRECTORATE, DEFENSE LOGISTICS SUPPORT
COMMAND
TRICARE Management Activity
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. TOM CARRATO, CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER
opening statement of conrad burns
Senator Burns. We will now hear from our second panel this
morning representing the defense agencies. We have Brig. Gen.
Gary Heckman, Director, Center for Command Support, U.S.
Special Operations Command; Frederick Baillie, Executive
Director, Resource, Planning and Performance, Defense Logistics
Support Command, Defense Logistics Agency. We have Carolyn
Becraft, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Personnel
Support, Families and Education, Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), and also Rear Adm. Tom
Carrato, Chief Operating Officer for TRICARE Management
Activity.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is nice to have you here this
morning, and we appreciate you being with us. I think it will
provide the subcommittee with an overview of your respective
agencies proposed in the 1999 budget. You might keep your
statements brief or if you can consolidate them. We will make
your full statement a part of the record.
Again, we hope that Senator Murray makes it back for her
statement.
We will start out this morning with Ms. Becraft. We are
looking forward to your statement. Thank you for coming today.
statement of carolyn h. becraft
Ms. Becraft. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly my
pleasure to be here today. I really want to thank you for
providing a quality of life for our service members that
reflects the uniqueness of the military service, and as Under
Secretary de Leon has stated on many occasions, allows us to
return quality, predictability, and stability to military life.
I have submitted my full statement for the record, and I
will just make some brief comments.
The Department continues to place a high significance on
community quality of life. We believe it is important to
provide the troops and families with the requisite programs and
services that will ensure that they have the tools necessary to
deal with the stresses of military life. It is particularly
important to provide quality of life because of the high
OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO in today's services. Your unwavering
support for military construction of quality of life projects
has allowed us to chart a course to sustain and improve the
troops' standard of living. Military construction projects
literally lay the foundation for our support programs that
military families need from education to child care to physical
fitness.
I want to especially thank the members of the committee and
your leadership last year for supporting a total of 16 quality
of life projects, including five fitness centers, seven child
care centers, three education centers, and a DODEA school
project. I can relay from my many visits to bases and
installations that there is no more demonstrable way to show
support for quality of life than when the brick and mortar
starts going up on the base. It really sends a strong message
that this committee really cares for military people. So, I
thank you so much.
quality of life
The issue of construction for our military dependent school
system has had my full attention. It is something that we need
to do to improve the overall quality of life. Moreover we need
to give the children of our armed forces a safe and
educationally enriching environment for them to succeed.
We have a long-term strategy to continue to address our
facility requirements in our upcoming budget. Our DODEA fiscal
year 1999 construction program focuses on our more urgent
requirements. We have the first stages of two major initiatives
in this request. The first major initiative is the construction
of the permanent school facilities to serve the students on
Guam, and the second is a long overdue replacement of aged
DDESS schools at Camp Lejeune.
Our first major initiative is on Guam. I have personally
visited all of the installations and spoken to the commanders,
students, faculties, and families. I have toured all of our
makeshift buildings in Guam. I can tell you that the Navy and
Air Force families heralded the opening of these schools. They
were very, very excited. It was a major contributor to quality
of life on the island, and it also is resulting in a
significant reduction in unaccompanied tours by military
families. So, in all, these schools have allowed us to really
stabilize the accompanied tour for our service members in Guam.
I also led a team of DOD leaders to Camp Lejeune to review
the school requirements there. These schools do not meet the
North Central Association nor Department standards due to the
physical plant deficiencies. These schools have been Band-Aided
after being hit by two hurricanes in 1996. They have major
electrical problems, safety problems, and infrastructure
problems that are beyond any economical repair.
The remaining two projects that we have in our 1999 budget
include an elementary school for the Antilles School District
in Puerto Rico, a longstanding requirement, and our West Point
Elementary School. Both of these projects address many of the
same types of safety, space, and structural issues that plague
the Lejeune and Guam schools. These schools are generally
outdated. The Antilles school includes dilapidated temporary
facilities that are structurally unsound. The classroom sizes
are too small, and they do not meet current educational
requirements, and they cannot be upgraded.
prepared statement
In conclusion, I want to thank you for your support for
DODEA's Milcon requirements, and moreover for the programs that
support our troops and their families. Quality of life is key
to preserving individual and family well-being, solidifying
military and societal core values in our forces, while
contributing to a trained and ready force. The continued
congressional funding and support is essential to maintaining
and upgrading these programs, services, and facilities. So,
again, thank you very much, and I would be glad to answer any
questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carolyn H. Becraft
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, today I am pleased to
report to Congress on the current status of a critical component of the
Department's quality of life program, the Department of Defense
Education Activity's (DODEA) construction program. As the Deputy
Assistant Secretary responsible for community quality of life programs
such as morale, welfare and recreation, voluntary education, child
care, and the education of military dependents, I am also pleased to
report that with the help of Congress, we continue to make great
improvements in the military community. This is indeed a good news
story, as it demonstrates, with concrete examples, our joint commitment
to quality of life in support of both the well-being of our service
members and their families and the long-term readiness and retention of
our military forces.
I want to especially thank the members of this committee for your
leadership and support last year for quality of life construction
projects; a total of 16, including five physical fitness centers, seven
child care centers, three education centers and one DODEA school
project. I can relay from my many visits to our bases and installations
that there is no more demonstrable way to show support for quality of
life, than when the brick and mortar starts going up at a base. I can
assure you that troops and families are appreciative and know where
this all starts.
Before fully addressing the specific requirements for each DODEA
project, let me give you an overview of our military community quality
of life projects that we have submitted this year.
The Department continues to place high importance on community
quality of life. We believe it is important to provide troops and
families with the requisite programs and services that will ensure they
have the tools necessary to deal effectively with the stresses of day
to day life. This is particularly important given the high operation
and personnel tempo in today's military. Examples of programs that have
a direct tie to high personnel TEMPO include physical fitness, child
care and education.
physical fitness programs
Physical fitness is directly linked to military outcomes and recent
surveys showed it to be one of the top priority morale, welfare and
recreation programs for our troops. The Department continues to put
high priority on improvement of the operation, management and the
physical plant for fitness programs. Funding for fitness in the Service
accounts has increased steadily since 1995. With your support six
fitness center projects were funded in fiscal year 1998 and we ask for
your support for three projects for fiscal year 1999. Further, because
of their contribution to positive military outcomes, the Department is
taking special action to improve and modernize the services offered.
``Operation Be Fit'' is a special fitness initiative launched to
improve programs and increase individual participation in fitness
activities.
child care programs
The Department appreciates your continuing support for our child
care programs. All seven projects authorized in fiscal year 1998 are on
track and are either in the final stages of design or contract award.
We request your support for the five projects in this year's budget.
All five projects are replacement of existing substandard or temporary
facilities.
The Department is proud to have been singled out as a model for the
nation in child care. On April 17, 1997, President Clinton issued an
executive memorandum recognizing the DOD child development program as a
model for the nation, and directed the Department to share its
expertise with Federal and state agencies, and the private sector. DOD
has developed partnerships with the Department of Health and Human
Services, the General Services Administration, and the National
Governors Association to meet that request. The Department also
established a National Clearinghouse of Military Child Development
Programs as a way to share materials and lessons learned. During the
next year, DOD will be working cooperatively through each of these
agencies to share our expertise and lessons learned, and thereby,
contribute to the President's goal of improving child care throughout
the nation.
The Department of the Navy and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
continue to serve as our Executive Agents for determining the
feasibility of outsourcing child care. The Navy has two outsourcing
program initiatives underway. One initiative is to purchase child care
spaces in existing accredited civilian child care centers by ``buying
down'' the cost for military families. The Navy has been successful in
purchasing spaces in four of the five locations they have targeted.
While contracts have been established, the much needed--and highly
expensive--infant toddler spaces are not available. The second Navy
initiative is an A-76 Commercial Activities Study for the military
child development program in the San Diego area. The goal of this study
is to determine if the private sector can manage the current program
utilizing on and off-base accredited centers and family child care
homes as a way to expand the availability of care in the area.
Finally, DLA is testing the management and operation of a military
constructed child development center in Dayton, OH. The contract has
been in effect for a little over 1 year. The Department is
commissioning a RAND study to determine the cost effectiveness of all
three of these options. This study will begin this spring.
voluntary education programs
Last year three education centers were funded thanks to your
support. The issue of lifelong learning is not new to DOD; we have
always been a leader in providing troops with the educational
opportunities for both professional and personal growth. Secretary
Cohen has found on his visits with the troops, that educational
opportunities are a major reason young people join the military.
Beginning October 1, 1998, we will have instituted a standardized rate
of support for tuition assistance across the Services. We are seeking
to expand educational opportunities through distance learning. This is
key if we want to remain an employer of choice in the 21st century. Our
fiscal year 1999 construction plan includes one new education center.
Participation in the voluntary education program remains strong, with
over 600,000 enrollments in undergraduate and graduate courses and
28,000 degrees awarded in fiscal year 1997. The high level of
participation makes this program one of the largest and most diverse
continuing education programs in the world.
department of defense education activity
When we talk about the Department of Defense Education Activity it
is important to remember that this school system is one of the largest
in the nation--with the added distinction of being spread around the
world--with some 200 schools located in 15 foreign countries, several
States, Guam and Puerto Rico. We take the business of educating the
students in our ``school-houses'' very seriously.
First some background on what we are doing inside the schoolhouse.
The Department of Defense Education Activity supports the educational
needs of children of American military personnel throughout the world.
DODEA continues to lead the way by providing an educational program
that exceeds the best U.S. public school system and one that prepares
students to compete in a global economy. DODEA has stepped up to the
plate by fully adopting the National Education Goals, implementing a
plan to link all schools to the Internet, and has become a leader in
the President's Technology Initiative.
In support of the President's National Education Goals 2000
Program, civilian and military leadership have become actively involved
in partnering initiatives with local schools both on the installation
and in the local community. Examples of programs that support a
``family friendly'' work environment are: adopt-a-school; Drug Abuse
Resistance Education (DARE); mentoring; and tutoring in math, science
and reading. Outcomes, as measured by standardized testing, continue to
show that DODEA students perform well, with Scholastic Aptitude Tests
scores for combined verbal and mathematics above the national average.
This strong educational emphasis combined with a good physical
plant makes a schoolhouse. Our fiscal year 1999 military construction
request is tailored to ensure that DODEA continues on the path towards
excellence by addressing the facility component of our educational
strategy. As the umbrella organization overseeing the Department of
Defense Dependents Schools (DODDS) overseas, and the Domestic Dependent
Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS) within the United States,
DODEA has significant military construction requirements in both school
systems. The fiscal year 1999 program will focus on the most urgent of
these requirements in stateside schools. We have the first stages of
two major initiatives in this request. The first major initiative is
the construction of permanent school facilities to serve students on
Guam and the second is a long overdue replacement of aged DDESS schools
at Camp Lejeune. I have personally visited all of these installations
and spoken to commanders, students, faculty and families. Navy and Air
Force families stationed in Guam heralded the opening of Guam schools
in time for this school year. I personally took a team of DOD leaders
to Camp Lejeune to review school requirements there. These schools do
not meet the North Central Association nor Department standards, due to
physical plant deficiencies. We have a strategy to continue addressing
Camp Lejeune and other serious facility requirements in the upcoming
budgets.
Specifics on each project in the fiscal year 1999 DODEA request are
as follows:
Naval Activity Guam, Additions and Renovations to Building 4175 and
Building 200
Programmed amounts are $8.6 million (bldg. 4175) and $4.5 million
(bldg. 200). In July 1997, in response to requests from the military
services and DODEA's assessment of the educational opportunities
provided through the local school systems, the Department authorized
the establishment of DDESS schools on Guam to serve approximately 2,500
military dependents stationed on the island. Previously, children of
military members attended Guam public schools through a contractual
arrangement with DOD. The military services considered the availability
of DDESS schools to dependents on Guam to be a significant quality of
life issue, and their lack of availability a major factor in the high
number of unaccompanied tours to Guam. The establishment of DDESS
schools will allow more stabilized accompanied tours and improve
overall readiness.
Between July and September, renovations were completed on four
facilities on Andersen AFB and two on the Naval Activity to provide the
minimum facilities necessary to begin operation. Included in the
renovations were extensive seismic upgrades to both facilities on the
Naval Activity, interior reconfigurations, and installation of fire
detection and suppression systems. In less than 90 days from the date
establishment of the schools was authorized, approximately $6.5 million
in renovation work had been completed, and supplies and materials had
been purchased, shipped, and distributed to the various school
facilities on the island. In addition, over 200 teachers and support
staff were hired and prepared for school opening.
The fiscal year 1999 military construction budget includes two
projects to provide additional renovations and additions to facilities
on the Naval Activity. The first of these is an $8.6 million project on
the existing elementary school serving 860 students from the southern
end of the island. The current facility has no gymnasium or physical
education space, does not have a meal service facility nor adequate
space for science, home economics, art, and music classes, and has a
substandard media center. This project will construct a 28,400 square
foot addition and renovate 11,000 square feet of existing space to
provide the necessary functional areas required to provide a full
educational program to the students being served.
Also on Guam is a $4.5 million project to construct an addition and
to renovate existing space within building 200 on Nimitz Hill, now
serving as the high school for students from both the Naval Activity
and Andersen AFB. This project will construct a new gymnasium, and
renovate existing space in building 200 to provide a student meal
facility, six additional general purpose classrooms, and three science
labs to accommodate the long term enrollment projection of
approximately 400 students.
Camp Lejeune--Replace Brewster Middle School
Programmed amount is $16.9 million. Another major initiative in
this year's budget request is the first of three school replacement
projects at Camp Lejeune, NC. These schools have been band-aided after
being hit by two hurricanes in 1996. Brewster Middle School was
constructed in 1961 and has major electrical, safety, and
infrastructure problems that are beyond economical repair. The school
also utilizes a number of substandard temporary facilities that will be
replaced as part of this project. This project will construct a new
120,000 square foot facility for 750 students in grades 6-8.
Ft. Buchanan--Antilles Elementary School
Programmed amount is $8.8 million. The existing school consists of
a 35-year-old main facility, 8 temporary buildings, and a 35 year old
open-ended Quonset hut that is used for physical education. Classrooms
in the main facility are too small to support current educational
requirements and the temporary buildings are dilapidated and have
outlived their useful life. This project will provide a new 76,000
square foot facility to serve approximately 570 students in grades 3-5
on Ft. Buchanan.
West Point--Additions and Renovations, West Point Elementary School,
U.S. Military Academy
The last project is a $2.8 million addition and renovation project
at the West Point Elementary School. This project will construct a
13,000 square foot addition to provide occupational and physical
therapy and physical education spaces to meet the needs of West Point
Elementary students, and convert the existing multipurpose room into
classroom space to support the learning disabilities program. The
current facilities for these functions do not meet current educational
needs nor New York State requirements required to support a learning
disabilities program.
Future Years Requirements
DODEA has an aggressive out-years plan to address the
infrastructure requirements of our schoolhouses worldwide. Our future
years' DDESS construction program currently has a requirement of 24
school projects in seven states. Projects are programmed in the out-
years to reduce this backlog. In addition to the Brewster Middle School
project at Camp Lejeune, two elementary schools at that location are
scheduled for replacement by projects programmed in fiscal year 2000
and fiscal year 2001. Construction of a 1,800-student elementary school
on Andersen AFB, Guam is also programmed for fiscal year 2000 and will
provide permanent facilities for the elementary students currently
housed in temporary buildings on Andersen. Also in fiscal year 2000,
three projects are programmed to reduce the backlog of military
construction requirements on overseas schools, as well as two
additional stateside school projects. Our total overseas future years'
DODDS construction requirement is for 16 projects.
In conclusion, I want to thank the committee again for your support
for DODEA's military construction requirements and moreover for all
programs that support our troops and their families' quality of life.
Quality of life is key to preserving individual and family well-being,
solidifying military and societal core values in our forces, while
concomitantly contributing to a trained and ready force. Continued
Congressional funding and support is essential to maintaining and
upgrading these programs, services and facilities. Thank you.
statement of gary w. heckman
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. We will get around to
asking some questions.
General Heckman, thank you for coming this morning and I
look forward to your testimony.
General Heckman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased
to be here today to discuss the fiscal year 1999 military
construction budget request for the U.S. Special Operations
Command, or USSOCOM. I am Brig. Gen. Gary Heckman. I am the
Director of the Center for Command Support. That is one of five
joint management centers on the staff headquarters at MacDill
AFB, FL.
With your permission, I will submit my formal statement for
the record and provide a brief summary.
Senator Burns. So ordered.
General Heckman. Our military construction program has a
direct, positive, and enduring impact on our joint special
operations capability. The command's Guard, Reserve, and active
duty soldiers, sailors, and airmen possess the highly
specialized skills required to successfully execute a full
range of joint special operations missions.
The current military construction program is planned to
provide essential facilities that preserve and improve force
capability, that increase the readiness of complex weapons
systems, and support our demanding joint training needs.
Our military construction budget request for fiscal year
1999 is $46.86 million. Of that, $41.21 million is for six
major construction projects, $4.2 million for unspecified minor
construction, and $1.45 million for planning and design for
future projects. It provides facilities which directly support
Reserve component, Army, Air Force, and Navy forces, and
approval of this program is essential to the continued
development of the joint special operations forces which
support America's national security.
prepared statement
The committee's support in prior years has greatly improved
our operations capability. We look forward to working with your
committee to acquire the facilities needed by USSOCOM to
perform our mission and to ensure that we continue to have a
fully trained and capable joint force.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary W. Heckman
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to present
the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) fiscal year 1999
Military Construction (MILCON) budget request. Our MILCON program has a
direct positive impact on our special operations capability. Our
soldiers, airmen and sailors possess the highly specialized skills and
equipment required to successfully execute the full spectrum of special
operations. A modern array of operations, training, and support
facilities preserves and enhances these critical skills and equipment.
purpose
The long-term goal of USSOCOM's facility program is to have all
units and personnel working and living in adequate facilities to
maximize training and operations capabilities. The current MILCON
program is planned to provide facilities that will preserve and improve
force capability, increase the readiness of complex weapons systems,
and support diverse training needs. In particular, it provides
facilities for units where no facilities exist, replaces substandard
facilities, and alters existing structures to accommodate improved and
expanded special operations forces (SOF) capability. All MILCON
projects are integrated at the USSOCOM level to ensure the most needed
projects are constructed at the right place, on time, and with the
highest return on investment.
The committee's support in prior years has greatly improved our
operations capability. We look forward to working with your committee
to acquire the facilities needed by USSOCOM to perform our mission and
to ensure we have a fully trained and capable force in the future.
milcon program
Our MILCON budget request for fiscal year 1999 is $46.86 million:
$41.21 million for construction, $4.2 million for unspecified minor
construction, and $1.45 million for planning and design. This total is
less than 2 percent of USSOCOM's total obligation authority and
represents an investment needed to ensure our physical plant supports
critical mission requirements. The six military construction projects
in this program include two projects for the Air Force Special
Operations Command, two projects for the Naval Special Warfare Command,
one project for the United States Army Special Operations Command, and
renovation of USSOCOM's Command & Control Facility at MacDill Air Force
Base, FL. Following is a brief description of each of the projects
listed by state:
Amphibious Operations Facility--$3.6 million--Naval Amphibious
Base, Coronado, CA.--Constructs a boat storage facility and renovates
an existing building for operational gear storage. Project provides
physical security and environmental protection for Naval Special
Warfare Boat Squadron ONE small craft, patrol boats and gear. Small
craft to be serviced include Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats and patrol
boats.
General Purpose Aircraft Maintenance Shop--$2.21 million--Eglin
Auxiliary (Duke) Field #3, Florida.--Constructs a general purpose
maintenance shop to support the 919th Special Operations Group (Air
Force Reserve). Provides an adequately sized and configured facility to
maintain aircraft and train aircraft maintenance personnel. Existing
facilities are too small and improperly configured and will be
demolished upon completion of this project.
Clear Water Aircraft Rinse--$2.4 million--Eglin Auxiliary
(Hurlburt) Field #9, Florida.--Provides a clear water rinse facility
for MH-53, MH-60, and C-130 aircraft after operations over salt water.
The construction will provide an automatic drive-through facility for
70 aircraft to prevent severe corrosion damage to these aircraft.
Renovate Command & Control Facility--$8.4 million--MacDill Air
Force Base, FL.--Renovates the interior of the existing USSOCOM
headquarters facility. USSOCOM is currently housed in a facility
constructed in 1967. Project rehabilitates the building's interior
systems, finishes, electrical and mechanical equipment which are worn
out from over 30 years of use and will provide more efficient use of
existing work space.
Aircraft Maintenance Hangar--$15.0 million--Fort Campbell, KY.--
Constructs an aviation maintenance hangar for MH-47 helicopters to
accommodate increased aircraft and personnel assigned to the 160th
Special Operations Aviation Regiment. Current facilities lack space for
shop maintenance, flight operations support, mission planning, crew
member training and unit administration.
Operations Facilities--$9.6 million--Naval Station Roosevelt Roads,
Puerto Rico.--Constructs operations and support space for Naval Special
Warfare Unit FOUR. Project provides an 80-person isolation facility for
temporary additional duty personnel, a boat maintenance/storage
building with overhead crane, boat ramp and finger piers.
summary
Our proposed fiscal year 1999 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 frederick n. baillie
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, General.
Mr. Baillie, how are you?
Mr. Baillie. Very good. Thank you, sir. I am pleased to be
able to return this year to work with your subcommittee on the
DLA Milcon.
Since you previously agreed to include the prepared
statements, I just have a few brief oral remarks.
The Defense Logistics Agency's fiscal year 1999 military
construction request is $73.9 million for nine projects. This
year the agency continues its emphasis on sustaining and
enhancing the Department's fuel storage and distribution
infrastructure. Seven of those nine projects that we are
requesting are fuel related and support the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the services operational requirements. These projects
include hydrant fuel systems to support strategic mobility and
the replacement of fuel storage facilities at several military
installations to comply with environmental standards.
At critical military installations, we propose to replace
fuel storage tanks and piping systems that are more than 40
years old and cannot meet current operational requirements.
These deteriorated facilities pose a serious environmental
hazard because they lack the physical safeguards to detect fuel
leaks or contain spills.
Our request also includes two projects at Elmendorf Air
Base and Lajes in the Azores to improve strategic en route
refueling capability.
One of the two remaining projects continues our program
from prior years to construct hazardous waste storage
facilities to conform with requirements of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
Finally, sir, at one of DLA's remaining supply centers, we
will convert a vacant warehouse to administrative space for 764
employees who are now scattered in approximately 36 temporary
office trailers.
In summary, our military construction program supports the
DLA mission by providing vital facilities that enhance the
services warfighting capabilities.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral statement. Again,
thank you for asking me to appear, and I will certainly be glad
to answer questions later.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frederick N. Baillie
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee: I am Frederick N.
Baillie, Executive Director of Resources, Planning, and Performance,
Defense Logistics Support Command, at the Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA). I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide information
about DLA's fiscal year 1999 Military Construction request.
military construction request
Our total Military Construction request for fiscal year 1999 is
$73,920,000. The program consists of nine projects that will enhance
strategic en route fueling capability, increase mission responsiveness,
eliminate environmental hazards, and improve facility readiness at our
activities in support of the Agency's missions. This request includes:
--$38.5 million for replacing or constructing additional fuel storage
tanks, fuel unloading facilities, and direct refueling systems
at five Air Force, Navy, and Army bases.
--$23.6 million for replacing deteriorated, obsolete hydrant fuel
systems at two Air Force bases.
--$1.3 million for constructing a conforming storage facility for the
disposal of DOD-generated hazardous waste.
--$10.5 million for the conversion of an existing warehouse to
administrative space at DLA's Defense Supply Center in
Richmond, VA.
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 7 fuel-related projects
at $62.12 million, which is 84 percent of our total program request.
Five of these projects (at the Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP)
Jacksonville, FL; Fort Sill, OK; Camp Shelby, MS; Naval Station
Mayport, FL; and, Pope Air Force Base (AFB), NC) are necessary to meet
environmental compliance and operational requirements. The remaining
two projects (at Elmendorf AFB, AK; and, Lajes, Azores) are priorities
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide critical fuels infrastructure
to support strategic en route mobility.
Fuel receipt and storage facilities
Our proposed investment of $38.5 million in fuel receipt and
storage facilities is to replace or add fuel storage, distribution, and
piping systems at five locations. These projects will overcome
shortfalls affecting support of the bases' missions and eliminate
potential environmental liabilities.
At Defense Fuel Support Point Jacksonville, FL, we will construct
an $11 million fuel storage facility. It will replace four existing 80-
year-old bulk fuel storage tanks that have failed, or are failing, due
to their age and mechanical condition. Two recent tank failures account
for a loss of more than half of the base's storage capacity for marine
diesel fuel. In addition, the storage capacity of two remaining tanks
has been limited due to structural deficiencies, causing the tanks to
lean outward. These conditions have forced the Agency to store some of
the area's critical prepositioned war-reserve fuel stock at less
optimum locations. This new facility will provide three 70,000-barrel
aboveground storage tanks, and allow the base to consolidate its war-
reserve and peacetime fuel stocks into storage tanks that comply with
state and Federal environmental regulations. The four existing
aboveground storage tanks will be demolished as part of this project.
At Fort Sill, OK, we propose a $3.5 million project to construct a
ground vehicle fueling facility to replace the existing fuel facility
that was permanently shut down because of numerous leaks and piping
system failures. This project replaces the installation's temporary
facility, which is undersized and malpositioned to meet mission
requirements. The new facility will provide the required storage
capacity and a ground vehicle dispensing facility to support Fort
Sill's crisis-response mobilization and peacetime missions.
At Camp Shelby, MS, we will replace deteriorated bulk storage tanks
that do not meet current environmental requirements. Our proposed $5.3
million project will provide the tanks, spill containment structures,
pumphouse, dispensing facilities, and mechanical controls to meet
current environmental standards and reduce the potential for costly
fuel-spill cleanups. The project includes the demolition of the
existing fuel facilities. This facility supplies fuel for the training
requirements for units of the National Guard, Reserve, and active
Department of Defense components.
At Naval Station, Mayport, FL, we will replace four old,
deteriorated underground storage tanks (UST) with four new aboveground
storage tanks. This $11.02 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. The
project will provide two 40,000-barrel marine diesel tanks and two
15,000-barrel jet fuel tanks with associated fuel systems and
equipment.
At Lajes Field, Azores, we will provide two aboveground fuel
storage tanks and a pumphouse to replace 30 deteriorated underground
tanks and a pumphouse that has been in service for more than 45 years.
Our proposed $7.7 million project provides the operating tanks, spill
containment structures, piping, and mechanical controls to meet current
environmental standards, and reduces the potential for costly fuel-
spill cleanups and aquifer contamination. These tanks and pumps are
essential for the continued operation of an 18-outlet hydrant fuel
system, built in 1993. The project includes the demolition of the 30
existing tanks and pumphouse.
Hydrant fuel systems
Our proposed investment to replace old and deteriorated hydrant
fuel systems, or provide new systems at critical bases, is $23.6
million.
We propose to replace a hydrant fuel system at Elmendorf AFB, AK.
The $19.5 million project will provide a system of 12 modern,
pressurized fuel hydrant outlets. The existing hydrant system, built in
the 1950's, is technologically obsolete and incapable of supporting
current wide-bodied aircraft refueling requirements. Repair parts,
which are no longer available, must be individually fabricated or
salvaged from other inoperable systems. Moreover, the deteriorated
system is at the point of failure; it has already leaked several times
this past year. This project is a high priority of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the U.S. Transportation Command to support strategic en route
mobility requirements.
At Pope AFB, NC, we propose to construct a new $4.1 million hydrant
fuel system to improve the base's capability to quickly refuel wide-
bodied aircraft. These aircraft are used to transport troops,
munitions, and equipment deploying from Fort Bragg. Currently, refueler
trucks are used to refuel these aircraft. Low pumping rates and long
turnaround times to refill the required six-to-seven truckloads of fuel
make use of refueler trucks unsatisfactory.
supply and service center investments
Supply centers
At the Defense Supply Center, Richmond, VA (DSCR), we propose to
convert an existing warehouse to an administrative facility to provide
permanent, modern, energy-efficient office space to support the Supply
Center personnel increase due to item transfer from the Services.
Currently, these employees are scattered in a temporary complex of 36
office trailers and in a deteriorated World War II wooden building. At
$10.5 million, conversion of this warehouse is more economical than
constructing a new administrative facility. The World War II building
will be demolished as a part of this project.
Conforming storage
Since 1980, DOD has tasked DLA with disposing of 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 1999, we are requesting $1.3 million to build a
conforming storage facility at one of our Defense Reutilization and
Marketing Offices to comply with these environmental requirements.
summary
DLA's fiscal year 1999 Military Construction request reflects our
efforts to support military readiness, protect the environment, and
provide safe and adequate working conditions for our military and
civilian work force. Seven of the nine projects provide vital fuel
facilities to support the Services' warfighting requirements. The
remaining two are needed to meet the Agency's non-fuel mission
requirements to sustain operations into the 21st Century.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present our fiscal
year 1999 Military Construction requirements.
statement of Tom Carrato
Senator Burns. Thank you, it has been nice working with
you. During the time that I have been here, you have been very
cooperative and informative, and I appreciate that.
Rear Adm. Tom Carrato. Is that it? Carrato?
Admiral Carrato. That is correct. Carrato.
Senator Burns. Chief Operating Office, TRICARE Management
Activity.
If there is anything that has been a discussion around
here, it is TRICARE. You might want to just give me a brief
explanation of TRICARE and how you think it is going. We look
forward to your statement.
Admiral Carrato. Yes, sir; good morning, Mr. Chairman. It
is my pleasure to be here this morning.
I will start by giving you a brief discussion of TRICARE
and how I think it is going.
TRICARE is the Department of Defense's managed care
initiative. We are seeking to convert one of the largest and
one of the most important health care systems in the world into
a system of regionally based primary care physician managed
care.
In my estimation, TRICARE overall is proceeding to meet its
goals of enhancing access, improving quality, containing costs.
As with any undertaking of this size, converting an entire
health care system to managed care, there are some bumps along
the way which we are experiencing. We are listening to our
beneficiaries and to Members of Congress and committee staff,
and as issues are raised, we seek to address them.
One of the ways that we are trying to take action to
further address these issues was the creation of the TRICARE
Management Activity. That is a direct result of the defense
reform initiative, and we have created a defense field
activity. The purpose is to manage the TRICARE program, manage
it effectively and efficiently for all concerned.
As part of the reorganization and with the creation of the
TRICARE Management Activity, the Defense Medical Facilities
Office is now within the purview of my office in the TRICARE
Management Activity. I would like to present today a brief
overview of our fiscal year 1999 medical military construction
program and provide for the record a longer written statement.
I just wanted to say that the Appropriations Committee has
been very supportive of our medical construction program in the
past, and I personally am looking forward to working with your
subcommittee.
Our mission is to provide preventive health care and
mission readiness for the Department of Defense. Our fiscal
year 1999 program requests an appropriation of $217,332,000 for
27 major construction projects, as well as $1.9 million for
unspecified minor construction. We are also seeking $8,555,000
for planning and design efforts to complete designs on fiscal
year 2000 projects and to commence design on projects
identified for fiscal year 2001. The total request for our
appropriation is $227,787,000.
program highlights
I want to highlight a couple of aspects of the program. We
seek the 10th and final increment of funding for the
Portsmouth, VA, naval hospital project. Our fiscal year 1999
budget request includes four projects for the hospital
addition, alteration, life safety upgrade, and support
infrastructure, two projects for medical training mission
support, six medical readiness related projects, and 14 clinic
replacements, additions, and alteration type projects. All
these projects will either improve the departmental mission of
readiness or quality of life for our beneficiaries and
providers.
We are constantly working on right-sizing DOD medical
facilities to support demographic and beneficiary requirements.
No portion of two overseas facilities, Royal Air Force
Lakenheath, United Kingdom, and Naval Air Station, Sigonella,
Italy is eligible for NATO funding.
This concludes my overview statement of the fiscal year
1999 medical military construction budget request. The program
stands as a testament to our commitment to provide quality care
to the men and women of our armed forces and to maintain our
medical readiness.
prepared statement
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present
our budget, and I welcome any questions you might have. Thank
you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Diana Tabler, Deputy Executive Director, TRICARE
Management Activity
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Diana
Tabler, Deputy Executive Director, TRICARE Management Activity, Office
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. I would like
to open with some overview remarks:
On behalf of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs,
I thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of Defense's
fiscal year 1999 Medical Military Construction Program budget request.
Our fiscal year 1999 request seeks $217,332,000 in appropriations
for 27 projects as well as $1,900,000 for Unspecified Minor
Construction and $8,555,000 for planning and design, for a total of
$227,787,000. I would like to provide a few details on our projects in
this year.
We are seeking $17,954,000 for the final phase of the Portsmouth
Naval Hospital, Virginia project. Congress has appropriated
$333,400,000 to date for this project. We continue to ask your support
for this important teaching hospital which serves the largest
population in the Navy.
We request funds for two hospital addition/alteration projects. The
Hospital Addition/Alteration project at Bremerton Naval Hospital,
Washington, for a cost of $28,000,000, will modify a facility built in
1979. The Pensacola Naval Air Station, FL, Hospital Addition/Alteration
project requires $25,400,000 to construct an Outpatient Clinic addition
and to partially renovate and perform life-safety upgrade work on the
existing hospital.
One of our projects at Royal Air Force (RAF) Lakenheath, United
Kingdom requires a Hospital Annex Replacement for $10,800,000 to
support the RAF Lakenheath/RAF Mildenhall communities. The current
annex is a group of primarily World War II era ``Quonset huts''
connected together with a common corridor.
Our fiscal year 1999 budget request includes 11 clinics that are
either replacements or additions/alterations. A Composite Medical
Facility Alteration and a Dental Clinic Addition at Moody Air Force
Base, GA, at a cost of $11,000,000, will ``right-size'' the hospital to
a clinic to meet local beneficiary health care requirements on a cost-
effective basis. Three Medical/Dental Clinic Replacements are
requested, one at Fort Stewart, GA, for $10,400,000, and two at Camp
Pendleton Marine Corps Base, CA, Margarita for $3,100,000 and San Mateo
for $3,200,000. The fifth clinic, an addition/alteration to the
existing composite medical facility, is required at Barksdale Air Force
Base, LA. This clinic, at a construction cost of $3,450,000, will
consolidate the operations of the Flight Medicine, Pediatrics, and
Immunization clinics, which are located in separate buildings
throughout the base. A Medical/Dental Clinic Addition/Alteration at
Grand Forks Air Force Base, ND, will provide an adequate aeromedical
service facility and a replacement dental clinic for $5,600,000. The
seventh clinic, an Aerospace Medical Clinic Addition/Alteration, at
Edwards Air Force Base, CA, is required 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 Clinic and War Readiness Material Warehouse
Replacement project at McChord Air Force Base, WA, will provide
outpatient and emergency care to flight crews, other military
personnel, and eligible beneficiaries for a cost of $20,000,000. The
ninth clinic is a Health Clinic Addition at Carlisle Barracks,
Pennsylvania, at a cost of $4,678,000, for expansion of the existing
health care clinic to meet healthcare requirements of the beneficiaries
in the central Pennsylvania. An $11,000,000 Primary Care Clinic will
consolidate functions from a troop medical clinic and provide family
practice health services to active duty personnel assigned to the
COSCOM area of Fort Hood, TX, and their eligible beneficiaries. The
eleventh clinic is a Flight Line Dispensary at Sigonella Naval Air
Station, Italy for $5,300,000 to replace an inadequate facility wrought
with major electrical, mechanical and structural deficiencies.
We are also requesting funding for two warehouse projects. The
first is a 44th Medical Brigade War Reserve Materiel Warehouse for
$6,500,000 at Fort Bragg, NC, to provide a consolidated, humidity
controlled, facility for storage of medical supplies and other medical
logistics operations. The second is a War Readiness Material Warehouse
at Holloman Air Force Base, NM, at a cost of $1,300,000 to accommodate
the peacetime storage of prepositioned medical war readiness material
resources.
We request $1,700,000 for a Patient Movement Items Operations and
Distribution Center at Travis Air Force Base, CA. David Grant Medical
Center is tasked to support both peacetime and contingency aeromedical
evacuation operations for both the Continental United States and the
Overseas theaters. Travis will serve as the main distribution center
for the Western United States and the Pacific.
Our program contains a Blood Donor Center at Fort Hood, TX, 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 also includes two medical training mission related
projects. The first one is a Physiological Support Division Addition/
Alteration project at Beale Air Force Base, CA, for $3,500,000 to
modify a 30-year old facility that will provide adequately sized and
properly configured space to meet the Aerospace Medicine Physiological
Support Division requirements of the U-2 mission. The second project is
a Hospitalman ``A'' School Addition at Great Lakes Naval Station, IL,
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.
We are requesting two utility projects. The first is $9,200,000 for
a Central Energy Plant at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, to replace the
existing inadequate facility. The second is a Water Storage Tank at San
Diego Naval Hospital, California for $1,350,000 to provide fresh water
during emergency situations. Currently, in the event of a disaster,
such as an earthquake and loss of the existing water main feeders, the
only means of receiving fresh water is by truck and this would depend
upon the road conditions.
We request $5,700,000 to construct a Disease Vector Ecology and
Control Center at Bangor Naval Submarine Base, WA. This facility will
consolidate testing and evaluation laboratory and instruction
facilities to replace leased space. This function provides
entomological assistance, preventive medicine conservation, and is the
sole provider of EPA/DOD approved Disease Vector Control and pesticide
application certification training required for all Preventive Medicine
Technicians in the Navy.
We are also requesting two projects in support of the Fleet
Hospital Life Extension Program at Cheatham Annex, Virginia. The first
is an Administration Office and data processing facility for
$1,900,000. The second is an Operational Warehouse for $9,400,000.
These facilities consolidate activities from three separate locations
on the West Coast resulting from the Base Realignment and Closure
actions. All deployable combat zone fleet hospitals in support of U.S.
Navy and Marine Corps forces throughout the world will be maintained,
rebuilt and stored until rotated, at the Cheatham location.
The last request is $700,000 for an Bioenvironmental Engineering
Facility Replacement at Keesler Air Force Base, MS, to consolidate all
of the Bioenvironmental Engineering functions necessary to support the
industrial functions of the base.
conclusion
This concludes my overview statement of the fiscal year 1999
medical military construction budget request. The programs stand as a
testament to our commitment to provide quality 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.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
I want to follow up on the facilities for military
readiness projects. Now, are these teaching centers? Are they
training centers for military readiness?
Admiral Carrato. They are training centers in support of
the readiness mission, sir.
Senator Burns. And that would be where we train corpsmen
and medics and these support people?
Admiral Carrato. We do have one training program for
corpsmen at Great Lakes.
Senator Burns. Well, that is the only Navy boot camp we
have left, is it not? Great Lakes? We are moving inland. Figure
that one out, folks. I will have to figure on that just a
little bit, you know. Why do they move it inland when you are
going to go to the ocean? It is beyond me. Getting there I
guess is the challenge, though. [Laughter.]
department of defense education activity [dodea] construction
Ms. Becraft, can you just give me an overview of the
backlog of the DODEA construction program? I have questions
along that line. How large are your overall construction and
modernization requirements right now?
Ms. Becraft. Our unfinanced requirements?
Senator Burns. Yes.
Ms. Becraft. About $280 million. I might say that the $280
million unfinanced requirement is our total system, including
overseas.
Senator Burns. Is it wise and have we ever sat down and
took a look--now, you know we pay impact aid to communities,
and these are paid to local school districts if the children of
our military personnel go to public schools in that area.
Ms. Becraft. That is correct.
Senator Burns. Has it ever been compared? Rather than
running education--elementary schools on our different bases,
should we be going to our public schools off base?
Ms. Becraft. Yes, sir; we have a study that Congress asked
us for in the 1995 authorization act that is currently in
coordination at OMB and with other agencies. It is similar to a
study that Congress asked us to do in 1986, asking if we should
turn over our domestic schools.
Senator Burns. Yes, I understand that.
Ms. Becraft. While the report is still in coordination and
it is not completed--when completed, we will forward it over.
There is a difference in the 1995 survey in that it asked us to
survey the military leaders, families, and the local education
agencies in addition to doing just a strict analysis.
It appears that the significant impediment to transferring
the schools is the concern of the local educational agencies
[LEA's] and their ability to absorb additional costs. There is
a cost issue to this, but I must say that our parents and our
military leaders are passionate about these schools. At those
bases where we have these schools, they are very good schools,
and they are absolutely passionate about keeping these schools.
Senator Burns. General Heckman, pressing requirements for
the future. What do you see in the future? What do you see for
your Special Operations Command?
socom future requirements
General Heckman. Well, we are one of the few areas of the
Department of Defense that has been experiencing growth, and I
think the ``Quadrennial Defense Review'' reaffirms the worth of
these type of forces. Right now we are funding at about 1
percent of the value of our infrastructure. The $46 million
represents that. We see, in probably the 2000 timeframe, the
need to ramp up our investment in our infrastructure to about a
2-percent level. We are looking for ideas for doing that. As
far as detailed projects in the year 2000 and out, I would have
to take that question for the record.
[The information follows:]
Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Agencies Construction Program
The United States Special Operations Command will need increased
Military Construction investment to the year 2003 to address space
deficits and substandard conditions, and to maintain the quality of our
facilities. New permanent construction is required to replace old,
deteriorated structures currently housing Ranger operations and
equipment maintenance functions at Fort Benning and Hunter Army Air
Field, GA, and at Fort Lewis, WA. New facilities are also needed to
replace aging World War II-era wooden buildings used by special
operations forces (SOF) units at Fort Bragg, NC, and at Fort Campbell,
KY. New airfield facilities are required at Eglin Auxiliary (Hurlburt)
Field #9 in Florida, and CV-22 maintenance training projects will be
required at several locations. Additional operational projects will be
required at several locations. Additional operational support,
training, and storage facilities will be needed by our Naval Special
Warfare units at Little Creek and Dam Neck, VA; Coronado, CA; and Pearl
Harbor, HI. Although not an inclusive list, these construction
requirements are representative of the facility capital investment
needed in the foreseeable future to enhance the operations, training,
and readiness of SOF.
Senator Burns. I would be interested in developing some
kind of a dialog with you on what you see on out beyond 2002,
2003, the programs we have out there. Of course, sometimes that
is hard to do because Government I guess--and we should be
ahead of the curve a little bit, but it is hard to tell because
we never know what national emergencies or how our priorities
change, they can change overnight almost. But, nonetheless, I
think it has to give us some kind of an idea on where our
thrust should be.
Over in the Defense Logistics Agency, a number of projects.
You tell me most of these are storage tank facilities and fuel
handling.
Mr. Baillie. Yes, sir; that is true.
dla environmental compliance
Senator Burns. Give me an idea on your environmental
compliance, how much of that budget. Have you any kind of a
figure on what it is costing us just for environmental
compliance?
Mr. Baillie. Of the $62 million that we are requesting for
next year for the entire fuels issue, at least 55 percent, if
not more, is to correct environmental problems. One of the
issues with environmental matters in the fuels arena is that,
as an example, the Elmendorf project, while it is categorized
formally as a strategic en route fueling, the hydrant system
itself is also subject to leaks. It is a number of years old at
this point. So, I would say the better part of what we are
doing is environmental in the fuels arena.
Senator Burns. The reason I bring that up and the reason I
brought up the environmental cleanup in BRAC is of a concern,
can we fund it, No. 1, but I think there is a perception in the
American public that the Department of Defense is not aware of
environmental problems and does not address those. I want to
make that very clear that we are very sensitive to those areas
and we are spending a hell of a lot of money in prevention and
then also in cleaning it up after we get done. I am still
concerned about the perception we have out there of our
military and answering some of those questions. We are spending
a heck of a lot of money and sometimes I think in areas where
it sort of cripples us from doing other things and completing
the mission of national security too. But we do not do it at
the cost of the environment. We do it with those things in
mind. And I appreciate that very much.
I will tell you, Admiral, on TRICARE we were looking at
some things. I have a daughter that just graduated from medical
school. I get all my advice from her. Am I taking advice from
the right person?
Admiral Carrato. Absolutely. [Laughter.]
Senator Burns. She gave me a tie the other day that had
nobody but the Flintstones on it, and I asked her if there was
a message. She called me a stone age father. So, I have no sway
over this woman whatsoever. But she is also pretty nifty too,
so I am pretty proud of her.
Additional committee questions
Again, that is all the questions I have. I know there will
be other questions that will come up as we look over the
material and as we start through the appropriations process. I
thank you for making yourself available to those questions. Of
course, Senator Murray will have questions and her statement
also on this particular area of appropriations will be part of
the record. I would appreciate if you would respond to her and
to the committee whenever she submits her questions. That is
very, very important to us as we make some of these decisions.
[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
department of defense education activity (dodea)
Question. How are the DODDS schools projects prioritized?
Answer. The DODDS and DDESS military construction requirements are
prioritized according to the following criteria: correction of life,
safety, and health deficiencies; overall space deficiencies; curriculum
requirements; and infrastructure upgrades; as dictated by national
educational accrediting association criteria.
Question. What determines whether DOD should maintain schools in
certain areas?
Answer. Overseas, DOD maintains elementary and secondary schools
wherever DOD dependents are stationed in sufficient numbers to warrant
establishment of a school. A minimum of 100 space-required elementary
school students or 300 space-required high school students is necessary
to support a DOD school.
Within the United States, the education of children including
military dependents, is a State and local responsibility. Dependent
children of military and civilian employees living on Federal property
are, therefore, educated in schools controlled and operated by local
education agencies (LEA's).
The only exception to this policy of State and local responsibility
for DOD dependent education occurs when the Local Educational Agencies
(LEA) cannot provide an appropriate educational program, i.e. an
instructional program comparable to that available in surrounding
communities or comparable communities in the State. The insufficiency
of Federal payments being made to the LEA's for the education of
military dependents is not adequate justification for a DOD
arrangement.
Question. I understand that $8.8 million of the budget request is
to build a new elementary school at Ft. Buchanan, Puerto Rico. Why is
that a higher priority than schools at Camp Lejeune? I understand those
schools are in deplorable condition.
Answer. The schools at Camp Lejeune are in poor condition.
Replacement of three of those elementary schools are scheduled during
fiscal year 1999-2001. The elementary school at Ft. Buchanan is also in
poor condition and was programmed for replacement several years ago. At
the time the Ft. Buchanan project was programmed, a study was underway
on the condition of five schools at Camp Lejeune to determine the most
feasible method of bringing those facilities to acceptable standards.
The study determined that two of the elementary schools at Camp Lejeune
could be economically repaired, while five others warranted complete
replacement. We are now beginning to implement the recommendations of
that study with replacement of three of those elementary schools during
the next 3 fiscal years.
Question. Please provide us additional information about the DODDS
study currently at OMB. How much additional funding would it cost to
turn over schools within CONUS to local school districts?
Answer. The study does not identify specific dollar amounts needed
if the schools were to transfer back to the LEA's. Rather, the study
noted that ``in the event of a transfer, all LEA's would require use of
the existing DOD facilities or construction of new facilities. Many LEA
officials also requested that the Federal Government provide transition
funding to cover the initial costs of a transfer, as well as additional
funding (beyond Impact Aid) to handle the increased student population
that would result from a transfer and/or to cover capital outlays for
the facilities that would house the new students''.
u.s. special operations command
Question. General Heckman, I understand that your planning and
design funds were cut this year in the budget development process. What
impact will this reduction have on your MILCON program?
Answer. Fiscal year 1999 planning and design funds would be needed
in the amount of about $5,850,000 to support a fiscal year 2000 and
2001 construction program ramp-up. If adequate design funds are not
available, the command would fall behind in preparing currently planned
projects for the budget submissions.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Murray
department of defense education activity (dodea)
Question. Ms. Becraft, you state in your prepared testimony that
there are 5 child care projects in this year's budget, all of them
either replacement of existing substandard or temporary facilities. You
also state that the Department is determining the feasibility of
outsourcing child care at civilian centers. I understand that there has
been some success in training military mothers to care for children on
base in their homes, but I see nothing in the testimony on this
program. Is DOD supporting child care on base by training military
mothers in this area, and what is the extent and success for this
program? How would this program compare in expense to outsourcing into
the civilian off-base community?
Answer. Our experience shows that family child care is less
expensive to operate than outsourcing in civilian Centers; however, our
ability to expand this program beyond its current scope is limited. DOD
is very proactive in licensing spouses of military members to provide
child care in military housing. We have nearly 10,000 family child care
providers. They account for over one-third of the child care offered in
the military system. To ensure a consistent quality of care, we require
comparable inspections, and oversight, training, and background
clearances. While family child care providers negotiate fees directly
with the parents, in general, fees compare favorably with the fees
charged by our military centers. We are examining the potential to
expand the availability of child care by licensing military spouses
(family child care providers) living in off-base housing. We are
successfully doing this in several locations through memorandums of
understanding with State and local licensing agencies.
subcommittee recess
Senator Burns. I appreciate you coming today, offering your
testimony, and I look forward to working with each and every
one of you. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., Tuesday, March 3, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:06 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Faircloth, Craig, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT B. PIRIE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE NAVY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
ACCOMPANIED BY:
REAR ADM. DAVID J. NASH, COMMANDER, NAVAL FACILITIES
ENGINEERING COMMAND
BRIG. GEN. JAMES M. HAYES, ASSISTANT DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR
INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS [FACILITIES], HEADQUARTERS
MARINE CORPS
REAR ADM. JOHN B. TOTUSHEK, DEPUTY CHIEF, NAVAL RESERVE
OPENING STATEMENT OF CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. The subcommittee on Military Construction
will come to order. This morning we will be talking to the Navy
and to the Air Force. It is a pleasure to have you here this
morning.
We will start off with the Navy component. We are still
dealing with a lot of infrastructure, it seems like, in
military construction. Yet we are having a terrible time
finding enough money. It seems like we are going backwards
instead of in the direction that I would like to see it go at
this time.
The services emphasized, primarily the Navy it looks like,
we are improving barracks, family housing, and other critical
quality of life facilities essential to meeting the longtime
recruiting and retention goals. It is important that our
service members and their families live in housing that is
comparable to those of their civilian counterparts. However, I
am still concerned about the low level of funding for the
military construction family housing in the fiscal year 1999
President's budget request for both the Navy and the U.S.
Marine Corps.
I will keep my statement fairly short, with one exception.
Mr. Secretary, we were just going through our notes here on
this morning that have come down from the staff and that is in
our area of BRAC. I think for the first time this committee
will probably hold some oversight hearings on environmental
cleanup as a result of base closings and this type of thing.
I am concerned about the amount of money that is being
taken from the overall budget in military construction to
environmental cleanup, and I am also a little bit concerned
about, after we get them cleaned up, how fast those properties
are making it into the private sector. I think once we get
everything on the table we can take a look at some of those and
maybe save some dollars. But I cannot ever remember coming
before this committee with any kind of figures as far as what
we are doing on environmental cleanup so that those bases can
be closed out and moved into the private sector.
So with that, we will hear from the Navy. But first, our
ranking member and associate has been a terrific help on this.
Nice to see you early this morning. We are starting at 9
o'clock. I do not think you noticed that. Farm broadcasters and
stockyard people get up and get around. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would note that
it is 6 a.m. for me.
Senator Burns. Well, we were wondering if you were not
operating on Seattle time.
Senator Murray. I do, I do.
last year's authorization bill supported appropriation adds
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you arranging
this hearing on our Navy and Air Force military construction,
BRAC, and housing programs. The programs the subcommittee
reviews are crucial, focusing as they do on the quality of life
of our uniformed personnel and on the vital infrastructure that
allows our forces to operate with assurance as the world's sole
superpower.
These programs allow use to defend our interests and those
of our allies and friends across an increasingly confusing and
complicated world scene.
Last year our subcommittee was able to mark up and report
its annual bill out, get it through the Senate and conference,
and to the President's desk early in the process. The committee
attended to the needs of the country and added some $800
million in funding to the budget request.
I would note that the authorization bill that was passed
after our bill, the reverse of the process as we would like it
to operate, substantially endorsed the projects that we added.
I would also note that we have just completed a long and drawn-
out process of overturning a rushed effort on the part of the
administration to subject some 38 of our projects to the line
item veto. It is a testimony to the care and thoroughness of
our efforts to scrub and include only very worthy, worthwhile
projects that we had the large support of our colleagues in
both the Senate and the House in supporting our work and
rejecting the attempt of the administration to strip out nearly
$300 million in worthy projects.
I hope that we will not have the same experience this year
and I expect that we will use the same care in making any
additions to the budget request and that we will again have the
support of our colleagues.
I note, Mr. Chairman, that the budget request has again
been rather drastically cut below last year's appropriated
amount, by some 15 percent or $1.4 billion below last year. If
this were allowed to stand, the reduction over the last 2
years, despite our additions last year, would amount to some 20
percent. Surely this reduction does not reflect the overall
funding for the defense budget. Yet the programs that we fund
are crucial to maintaining a quality armed force with adequate
infrastructure, housing, child care, barracks, and other
critical programs. We will, I am sure, be taking a careful
review of the adequacy of the quality of life programs in this
budget.
guard and reserves
In addition, Mr. Chairman, we again face what appears to be
an invitation to rewrite the request for our Guard forces. The
request is nearly the same as was requested last year, a
request that we felt it necessary to more than double.
Specifically, we added some $130 million to the budget request
of $60 million for last year, for a total of $190 million for
the Air National Guard. Yet, again, despite the sense that the
budget was not adequate to a healthy Guard force, we are faced
with an identical situation.
The request this year is about $35 million, which if we
accepted it would constitute the lowest appropriated amount for
the Guard in 20 years. It is obvious that we will have to
review the requests of adjutant generals across the country
and, I would strongly guess, substantially rewrite the budget.
As for housing and utility programs, the Department of
Defense is moving toward privatization, a trend which appears
promising but as yet not proven. Therefore, it is some cause
for concern that the housing budget for the Navy is $170
million less than last year, almost a 13-percent reduction. We
have to exercise some care that the privatization programs
will, in fact, work before we reduce this vital quality of life
program area, since it not only affects the morale of our
forces, but retention and recruitment as well.
Again, I appreciate the efforts of the chairman to take the
interests of all Senators and on both sides of the aisle into
account, and I expect we will have a continuation of the
excellent working relationship that we had last year again in
considering the bill for fiscal year 1999.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Murray.
We are joined this morning by our good friend Senator
Faircloth from North Carolina, and I think he has some
questions. Do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUCH FAIRCLOTH
Senator Faircloth. I do, just very briefly.
Senator Burns. Very briefly, you may make your opening
statement, Senator.
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The point I made last week about the President's Army and
defensewide budget request for military construction apply as
well to the Navy and the Air Force. Again, the President has
left it up to the Congress to add the funding that is necessary
to continue to rebuild our Navy and Air Force infrastructure.
Now, we are all aware of the limitations of the budget. We
will add funds for the defense infrastructure and we will shift
funds from those of lower priority to those that are more
important. But clearly, I find it strange and unwise that our
limited resources are being spent on projects that could be
premature.
An example of this is how the Navy is already spending
money at the Oceana Air Station at Virginia Beach as if it had
already decided to send the Cecil Field Hornet squadrons there
before the environmental impact statement was complete. Now,
Mr. Chairman, it is possible they have already decided and just
have not told anybody.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all your help in the past and I
look forward to working with you this year to ensure adequate
funds can be found for military construction. In order to do
this, we need to stop wasting money on projects until the final
decision has been made. I look forward to hearing from the
first witness.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Senator Faircloth.
Secretary Pirie, nice to have you this morning. It is
always enjoyable working with you, and you might introduce the
folks that you have with you. You might want to shorten your
statement, but be aware that full statements will be made part
of this record, so that we might get on with the dialog of
taking care of your needs and maybe some of ours.
statement of robert b. pirie
Mr. Pirie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, I
will just hit a few points in my full statement and submit the
full statement for the record.
Senator Burns. It will be so ordered.
Mr. Pirie. With me this morning are: Rear Adm. Dave Nash,
who is the Chief of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command;
Rear Adm. John Totushek, who is Deputy Director of the Naval
Reserve; and Brig. Gen. Mike Hayes, who is the Marine Corps
Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Installations and Logistics
[Facilities].
navy budget reflects priorities
Mr. Chairman, a few things in my statement that I would
like to underscore. First, our requests for military
construction, for family housing and for bachelor housing are
generally lower this year than they were last year, even
without considering the projects added by the Congress to last
year's President's budget. I want to emphasize that this
reflects the administration's priorities in dealing with strong
demand in other program areas.
Reflecting on my 4 years in this job, I recall that in 1994
there was great concern about readiness, in 1995 for quality of
life, in 1996 and 1997 about modernization and beefing up the
investment accounts. We have yet to have a year of concern for
real property. I am not personally happy about this, but it is
not the first time in my experience that the military
construction and real property maintenance accounts have been
used to pay other bills.
In any case, our request is a straightforward expression of
our priorities. We recognize that there is little flexibility
in the balanced budget agreement for funds to be added, and we
are prepared to live with what we have requested.
The other area which I am not personally pleased about is
that of family housing and public-private ventures. Our
progress in this area has been far less than we had hoped.
There are some fairly good reasons for this, but there are not
any real excuses. The major source of funding for public-
private ventures is money appropriated for family housing
Milcon projects. As I mentioned a number of times last year,
this is an awkward device. The amount appropriated may bear
little relation to the finally negotiated public-private
venture.
The fact that there is a housing project available for
immediate obligation and start of construction may tempt the
claimants to press on with the Milcon and not wait for a
public-private venture to be developed and negotiated. There
is, in fact, not much incentive for the claimants to go for
public-private ventures. The savings that accrue are centrally
managed and invisible to those in the field, and many of our
people in the field have yet to be convinced that PPV's are the
best way to provide housing for our people.
Finally, the many stages of approval for public-private
ventures tend to dampen enthusiasm about those projects. I am
very concerned about this and have put this issue at the top of
my priority list. We expect to make substantial progress during
this coming year.
Finally, also very high on my priority list is the matter
of seeing to completing the BRAC actions of earlier years. We
are nearly finished with the Milcon projects required to
support BRAC relocations. We are beginning to convey
substantial amounts of property to local redevelopment
authorities for community reuse. In the coming year we expect
to complete the decision process for 19 bases, clearing the way
for conveyance of the property at such places as Naval Station
Treasure Island, Naval Air Station Alameda, and Naval Shipyard
Long Beach.
prepared statement
Each conveyance has its associated issues, but we and the
affected communities are learning how to deal with them
somewhat better than in the past. We are helping the
communities and their local redevelopment authorities to become
better informed about the required processes and the
constraints under which we must operate. I am optimistic that
the bulk of the pending disposals will be in place by the end
of next year, and thus our backlog of disposals from previous
rounds of BRAC will be cleaned up well before disposals from
future BRAC rounds could be ready to be processed.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my preliminary remarks.
[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 (DON) installations and facilities programs.
My statement today will cover a number of areas:
--Department of the Navy challenges;
--The need for further infrastructure efficiencies;
--Infrastructure budget in perspective;
--Program highlights for family housing, military construction, and
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).
Before I discuss our amended fiscal year 1999 budget request, I
think it is important to consider the challenges we face in
constructing a budget that balances numerous competing needs, including
those for our infrastructure.
department of the navy challenges
Naval forces project U.S. influence and power around the world to
preserve American security through peacetime engagement and deterrence.
At any given time, 60,000 Sailors and Marines are deployed around the
world aboard 100 ships. Carrier battle groups and amphibious ready
groups provide near continuous presence in the Mediterranean Sea, the
Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean, the Western Pacific, and the Caribbean. U.S.
naval forces conduct exercises with our allies to insure our mutual
ability to respond to international situations in a timely and
effective manner.
Maintaining this capability presents challenges in four key areas.
Highly motivated PEOPLE are our most important asset. We must
continually recruit American's best and brightest men and women, train
them to perform up to their potential in a highly skilled technological
environment, and retain them to perform even more challenging
assignments in the future through an effective quality of life program.
Quality of life is a key motivator for our people.
Maintaining READINESS, both for today and for tomorrow remains a
top priority. We must allocate sufficient assets to conduct training
exercises, enable routine operational deployments, and respond to
National Command Authority taskings during evolving crises. Providing
adequate shore facilities, including piers, runways, training
facilities and maintenance shops with the necessary environmental and
occupational health and safety standards which helps to insure current
fleet readiness.
Investments we make today in TECHNOLOGY help to ensure that our
readiness tomorrow remains both robust and superior to that of our
adversaries. We must also translate technological innovation that is
accomplished in the laboratory, into effective tools in the fleet
through recapitalization of our weapon systems and platforms.
Finally, we must recognize and embrace the need for greater
EFFICIENCY. In the 1998 DON Posture Statement, the Secretary of the
Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps speak to the need to exploit technologies from the Revolutions in
both Military Affairs and Business Affairs. These efforts are needed to
give our forces the power and efficiency to dominate the battlefields
of tomorrow. The Revolution in Business Affairs has particular
significance for us as we continue efforts to reduce the size and cost
of our shore infrastructure.
the need for further infrastructure efficiencies
Infrastructure Analysis
The DON continues the transformation process from the Cold War era.
Four rounds of BRAC will have reduced the size of the Navy and Marine
Corps infrastructure by 17 percent with projected net savings of $5.6
billion when implementation is completed in fiscal year 2001. However,
that reduction in shore infrastructure is significantly less than the
45 percent reduction in ships and 30 percent reduction in military end
strength we have experienced during that time.
There have been numerous studies of Department of Defense (DOD)
infrastructure. The recent Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) found that
there was enough excess capacity in DOD infrastructure to warrant two
more rounds of closure and realignment similar in size to BRAC rounds
in 1993 and 1995.
The Defense Reform Initiative (DRI), begun in 1997, sought to
establish a DOD corporate vision that would support our forces with ``a
Department that is as lean, agile, and focused as our warfighters.''
The DRI report emphasized four key principles:
--Re-engineer to adopt modern business standards;
--Consolidate functions to streamline organizations, remove
redundancy, and maximize synergy;
--Compete by applying market mechanisms to improve quality, reduce
costs, and better respond to customer needs;
--Eliminate excess supporting infrastructure structures to free
resources and focus on core competencies.
The Report of the National Defense Panel (NDP) in December 1997
noted that DOD today is ``burdened by a far flung support
infrastructure that is ponderous, bureaucratic, and unaffordable.
Unless its costs are cut sharply, the Department will be unable to
invest adequately for the future.'' The panel endorsed the need for
further efficiencies and additional rounds of BRAC. Without such
reforms, ``DOD will have to reduce optempo, cancel acquisition programs
and reduce force structure and end strength.''
In response to this external analysis, which is supported by our
own estimates, the Secretary of Defense endorsed the need for further
infrastructure consolidation and efficiency, and the President's budget
for fiscal year 1999 requests approval for two more rounds of BRAC, one
in fiscal year 2001, and another in fiscal year 2005.
Infrastructure Efficiency Efforts
The DON leadership has embraced the conclusions of the QDR, DRI,
and NDP and supports two additional rounds of BRAC. We have also moved
forward aggressively in the pursuit of the Revolution in Business
Affairs as we seek to improve the efficiency of the shore
infrastructure, reduce costs, and improve service.
The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Logistics) established an
overall vision for this revolution this summer by publishing a 21st
Century Shore Support Infrastructure Vision and Strategic Plan for the
Navy. Key aspects of the plan include: eliminating certain functional
services that are readily obtainable through the private sector;
outsourcing; privatization; dual use of facilities; reduction of
facility inventory; joint component use of infrastructure; and
homebasing military personnel in fleet concentration areas.
Many of these initiatives are already well underway.
--Regional Maintenance.--The Navy has now established eight Regional
Maintenance Centers for ship and aircraft intermediate and
depot level maintenance. The Pearl Harbor Pilot Project
established 1 October 1997, will integrate over the next year
the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard with the Pearl Harbor
Intermediate Maintenance Facility. The consolidated work force
will form a common manpower pool that can be efficiently
assigned as required.
--Regionalization of Base Support Functions.--The Navy on 1 October
1998 will consolidate base operations support (BOS) and real
property maintenance (RPM) support functions previously
provided by 18 claimants down to 8 claimants. This will allow
smaller claimants to focus on their primary mission, and
provide new opportunities to optimize these functions under a
single commander in a Navy fleet concentration area.
--Outsourcing competitions.--The Navy and Marine Corps are proceeding
with competitive outsourcing, a business practice that holds
great potential to reduce infrastructure costs. In January
1997, I provided the Congress with notification of the Navy's
intent to compete 10,600 positions across the country under the
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 standards. The
Navy has now put contracts in place to support the studies and
published a technical performance-planning guide. Most of these
studies are now underway and are expected to be completed later
this year and early next year. This past January, I provided
the Congress with notification of our intent to study 7,200
more billets, with another 7,800 planned for later this fiscal
year. Ultimately, we plan to study 85,500 Navy and Marine Corps
billets in support areas such as food services, housing
management, community support, ground maintenance, facility
maintenance, training, data processing, and aircraft fueling.
Past competitions have shown 30 percent savings regardless of
whether the decision is to contract out the function or retain
it in-house with a new, most efficient organization.
--Privatization of Housing and Utilities.--We are pursuing harnessing
the skills and techniques of the private sector to solve our
lack of adequate housing and to reduce utility costs. I will
discuss privatization in more detail later in my statement.
--Building demolition.--The goal of the building demolition program
is to eliminate aging, unneeded facilities and their associated
operating and maintenance costs. Both the Navy and the Marine
Corps have established centrally managed demolition programs
and increased funding for them in fiscal year 1999. Last fiscal
year, the Navy undertook 48 projects to demolish 120 structures
representing 2.3 million square feet of space and $161 million
in plant replacement value (PRV). The Marine Corps undertook 8
projects to demolish 51 buildings representing 220,000 square
feet of space and $26 million worth of PRV. The fiscal year
1998 and fiscal year 1999 demolition effort will be even more
ambitious.
--Smart Base.--The Smart Base project seeks to apply modern business
practices to reduce shore infrastructure costs and improve
services. Smart Base will host 20 technology demonstration
projects this year at the two designated demonstration sites:
Naval Station Pascagoula, MS, and Naval Shipyard Portsmouth,
NH. One project that has already begun is a distance learning
application that will provide selected training via the Navy
Wide Area Information Network called Smart Link to a remote
schoolhouse. This avoids the time and expense of sending
Sailors to a traditional classroom training experience.
These efforts are needed to reduce infrastructure support costs and
allow us to reallocate additional savings to support more robust weapon
system and platform modernization efforts. As the Secretary of the Navy
has stated in his Posture Statement for this year, ``shipbuilding plans
are adequate in the near term to support the projected fiscal year 2003
force of about 300 ships, however, beyond the FYDP, this rate of
production will not permit us to maintain the required ship and
aircraft inventory.'' The Department of the Navy is counting on further
infrastructure savings to make a significant contribution to solving
modernization issues.
Infrastructure Budget in Perspective
Compared with overall DON fiscal year 1999 budget.--The Department
of Navy Infrastructure budget includes: Military Construction, Navy;
Military Construction, Naval and Marine Corps; Family Housing, Navy;
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC); and Environmental Restoration,
Navy. In addition to these appropriations, base operations support and
real property maintenance functions are included in the Operations and
Maintenance accounts, Navy and Marine Corps, active and reserve. In
aggregate, our total installation budget represents about $7.7 billion,
or about 9.5 percent of the DON fiscal year 1999 budget request of
$81.5 billion.
Compared with fiscal year 1998.--Our fiscal year 1999 installation
construction budget request (MILCON, Family Housing and BRAC) of $2.3
billion is $500 million below our fiscal year 1998 President's budget
request, and $593 million below the fiscal year 1998 authorization of
appropriation level of $3,057.7 million.
Most of the reduction is in our BRAC request; we were able to
reduce our fiscal year 1999 BRAC request by $368 million below the
fiscal year 1998 Presidents' budget and authorization of appropriation
level because of fewer BRAC related construction requirements. Most
BRAC construction is complete or underway. BRAC fiscal year 1999
construction consists of 14 projects totaling $147 million, compared
with 40 projects totaling $300 million in fiscal year 1998.
Our Family Housing, Navy budget request of $1,196 million is $59
million below the fiscal year 1998 President's budget request, and $160
million below the fiscal year 1998 authorization of appropriation level
of $1,356 million. The changes are due to reductions in new/replacement
construction and efficiencies in operations and maintenance account. As
I mentioned last year, we are stepping back from acquiring new homes
that the Government will own and operate. We have two family housing
replacement construction projects in our fiscal year 1999 budget
request totaling $59.5 million, compared with 9 projects appropriated
in fiscal year 1998 totaling $175.2 million. We appreciate the
additional projects funded in fiscal year 1998.
We have also reduced our Family Housing Operations, Maintenance,
and Leasing request. Our fiscal year 1999 request of $915 million is
$61 million below the fiscal year 1998 budget request and $50 million
below the fiscal year 1998 authorization of appropriation level of $965
million. This reduction is a result of an inventory reduction in fiscal
year 1999 of 3,250 Navy and 1,000 Marine Corps units, and cost savings
from management efficiencies in regional maintenance contracts, self-
help services, utility cost savings and furnishings inventory control
improvements. These efficiencies will not affect the quality of life of
our Sailors, Marines, or their families. We have added $10.5 million in
the budget for new leases coming on-line in Naples, Gaeta, La
Maddalenu, and Sigonella, Italy.
Our fiscal year 1999 Military Construction, Navy budget of $468.2
million and Military Construction, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve
budget request of $15.3 million are $67.4 million below and $1.4
million above, respectively, the fiscal year 1998 President's budget
request and $203.4 million and $32 million below the fiscal year 1998
authorization of appropriation levels of $671.6 million and $47.3
million. While some of the reduction is due to lower inflation
estimates, the primary reason for the reduction below the fiscal year
1998 appropriated level is that we simply could not sustain the fiscal
year 1998 level of funding into fiscal year 1999.
While I would prefer to be here today presenting a more robust
infrastructure budget, I must also observe that funding shortfalls in
our area are no worse than elsewhere in the Navy budget. We need the
authority to conduct two additional BRAC rounds. The additional
closures and realignments, combined with the efficiencies we are
pursuing, will significantly reduce our infrastructure, and thus, allow
our Base Operating Support, Real Property Maintenance, and Military
Construction funds to go further in tackling repair and replacement
backlogs which continue to grow.
I will now address each area of our budget in more detail.
family housing
Fix what we own
Our family housing and barracks programs, combined with
compensation, medical care, child care, family services, and morale and
welfare programs, form the cornerstone of our quality of life efforts.
Our core family housing philosophy remains to first fix what we own.
The Navy's Neighborhoods of Excellence, and the similar Marine Corps
Family Housing Campaign Plan, embodies the Department's efforts to
improve the quality of life for our Sailors and Marines and their
families by targeting resources to improve their living conditions. Our
fiscal year 1999 budget request represents the continued implementation
of these initiatives. An example of this is the family housing
revitalization program which provides improvements in major home
components (electrical and plumbing systems, replacement windows and
doors, insulation, updated kitchens and baths, landscaping, better
street lighting) for an entire neighborhood, rather than piecemeal
improvements on selected components of individual homes. Our fiscal
year 1999 improvement budget totals $212 million and would renovate
2,270 Navy homes at 25 locations and 600 Marine Corps homes at 4
locations.
Our fiscal year 1999 budget also includes replacement construction
of 162 homes at Naval Air Station Lemoore, CA, at a cost of $30.4
million, and phase one replacement of 150 homes at Public Works Center
Pearl Harbor, HI (Halo Moku housing area) at a cost of $29.1 million.
We have also requested $15.6 million for planning and design of the
improvements and replacement construction projects.
Basic Allowance for Housing
We continue to rely on the private sector to provide housing for
our Sailors, Marines and their families. Worldwide, 75 percent of Navy
families and 66 percent of Marine Corps families live in private sector
homes in nearby communities. Our bases have housing referral offices to
help newly arriving families find suitable homes in the community. I am
also very encouraged by the new Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
established by the Congress last year. BAH is being phased in over the
next 5 years and will better tie housing costs to local market
conditions and equalize out-of-pocket costs for equivalent housing
across the Nation. We will be watching closely how this affects the
housing situation for our members and their families.
Nonetheless, there may remain some locations where there are
insufficient suitable \1\ homes for our members in the private sector.
In the past, we have used family housing construction funds to build or
acquire homes to solve our housing deficit. More recently, we have used
these funds to replace housing that could not be economically
rehabilitated. Several years ago, we realized that the pace of new and
replacement construction combined with outyear funding expectations
would never let us solve our significant and seemingly intractable
housing problem. We worked closely with the Congress to establish
ground breaking new authorities in fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year
1996 on the use of public/private ventures as a housing tool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Suitability is based on the following DOD criteria: location
(within 1-hr commute); cost (allowances cover 85 percent of housing
cost); size (minimum square footage and number of bedrooms); condition
(unit is well maintained and structurally sound); and, ownership (all
owner occupied housing is suitable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public/Private Ventures
The Navy remains the vanguard of DOD efforts to use public/private
ventures to solve persistent housing inadequacies. I am pleased to
report that we have completed two projects and Navy families are now
occupying them.
We signed an agreement in July 1996 with the Landmark Development
Company of Austin, TX to design, construct, own, operate, and maintain
400 two-, three- and four-bedroom townhomes on private land in the
South Texas region. The Navy invested $9.5 million from the DOD Family
Housing Improvement Fund and the developer invested $23.0 million, for
a total project cost of $32.5 million. The developer built 300 homes in
a development called Bridge Point in Portland, TX, to support personnel
assigned to Naval Station Corpus Christi and Naval Station Ingleside,
and 100 homes at a development called Hawks Landing in Kingsville, TX,
to support personnel assigned to Naval Air Station Kingsville. All
homes at Kingsville are leased and occupied, while all but 67 homes at
Portland had been leased as of mid-February. Sailors occupy over three-
quarters of the Portland and Kingsville homes, although a majority of
occupants at Kingsville are junior officers. There is a waiting list of
59 Navy families/individuals for the Kingsville housing. Sailors have
first preference to rent one of these homes, and rents are, by our
evaluation, set at about $100 per month below comparable housing in the
community. The partnership extends for 10 years, with an optional 5-
year extension. The Navy will share in the proceeds upon conclusion of
the partnership and sale of the homes.
We entered into an agreement in March 1997 with Dujardin
Development Company of Everett, WA, to design, construct, own, operate,
and maintain 185 homes on private land in Everett, WA. The Navy
invested $5.9 million of Navy Family Housing construction funds, which
represented 32 percent of the total project development cost.
Construction of duplex homes in the development called Country Manor at
Smokey Point began in April 1997, and was completed in November 1997.
Occupancy began in August 1997, and full occupancy was achieved in
December 1997. Enlisted Sailors occupy all homes, with the majority at
the targeted E-4 through E-6 pay grades. Like the South Texas project,
our Sailors had first preference to rent the homes at a cost of about
$100 per month below comparable housing in the community. The
partnership extends for 10 years, with 20 percent of the homes to be
sold annually beginning with the sixth year. Navy families will get
preference for purchasing the homes. The Navy will also share in the
proceeds upon conclusion of the partnership.
PPV Policy
While I am pleased with the completion of our first two PPV
efforts, I must admit that subsequent progress has been less than we
initially contemplated. A number of factors complicate the PPV process.
First and foremost, each location brings a unique situation in terms of
property values, availability of private sector housing, developer
interest and expertise, property availability, and financing options.
We must be certain, for each PPV, that we have locked in an agreement
that will provide good housing for our people and also good for the
Government in both the short term and long term. In addition, some in
the Navy have been reluctant to abandon the traditional military
construction option, in which they control project location, cost,
construction standards, and assignment of personnel, and occupants have
no out-of-pocket housing costs.
We are still sailing in uncharted waters with PPV's and that
rightly causes some concerns. But where we lacked an overall corporate
philosophy about exactly how, when, and where we would apply the PPV
tools, we now believe we can move forward with more confidence. I
recently established DON policy to address many of these concerns. Key
aspects of this policy are:
--We will rely first on PPV's to meet our housing needs, including
replacement construction and whole-house revitalization. If a
careful analysis of economic, quality and market factors
conclusively demonstrates that a PPV is not feasible, we may
turn to more traditional means of meeting requirements.
--Regional Scope.--All Navy housing in a region will be included in
the scope of PPV's, which will focus on privatizing the
replacement, renovation, maintenance and operation of existing
Government housing and used to meet any housing deficits. This
has led us to re-evaluate previous PPV projects into a regional
context.
--Quality Standards and Amenities.--PPV housing quality will be
comparable to what the private sector would provide for
civilians in the same overall income ranges. Some homes can be
used to provide choices for dual-income families who can and
want to afford higher standards.
Out-of-Pocket Expenses.--The goal is for service members to pay no
out-of-pocket expenses for housing or utilities. However, where out-of-
pocket expenses are needed to make the PPV financially viable, they
will not exceed the BAH limit for each paygrade.
--Rent Scale.--Rents should be established in the same manner as the
private sector, i.e., by unit size and quality. Rent scales
should be consistent with regional needs.
--Conveying Land or Units.--The DON will not normally convey
ownership of the land, unless it is excess to long-term needs.
PPV's can offer long-term lease of land or existing housing.
--Allowing Non-Military Occupants.--Service members will have first
priority on PPV housing. PPV's may accommodate civilian
rentals, with the length of the lease limited appropriately, if
units cannot be filled with service members.
While this new policy will not jump-start the PPV program, I am
hopeful that it will help overcome uncertainty and reluctance in the
field and lead to more, well considered PPV projects in the near
future.
Future PPV's
The Commandant of the Marine Corps has strongly endorsed PPV's as a
means to leverage the Marines' limited housing revitalization funding
and he has pursued an aggressive PPV program. The DOD recently provided
the required 30-day notice to Congress prior to release of a Request
for Proposal for a PPV at Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, GA. The
project would convey 419 existing off-base homes in an area called
Boyett Village, as well as a former hospital site to a developer in
exchange for development and management of up to 160 homes on base.
This project, as currently conceived, would not require any
construction funds, would avoid the need to renovate Boyett Village at
an estimated cost of up to $35 million, and would meet the total
housing needs of the base. The Marine Corps would provide the developer
with a 50-year ground lease of land on base. The Marine Corps announced
the PPV on 9 February 1998 in the Commerce Business Daily, and plans to
issue the Request for Proposal in mid-March.
Another Marine Corps PPV project has attained DON and DOD concept
approval. The project at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA, would
seek to convey 512 existing on base homes to a developer in exchange
for the revitalization and management of these homes and the
construction and management of 200 new homes on base. A final Request
for Proposal is now being prepared in coordination with the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, the acquisition agent for all Navy and
Marine Corps housing.
The Marine Corps is also nearing completion of a concept for a PPV
at Air National Guard Base Stewart, NY, and Westover Air National Guard
Base, Chicopee, MA. This project would seek to convey 320 existing
homes at Stewart and 279 existing homes at Chicopee to a developer for
private management and preferred rental opportunities for Marines and
other service members. The Marine Corps is now developing a Request for
Proposal at both locations.
The two most advanced Navy projects are for follow-on PPV at
Everett, WA, and San Diego, CA. Like ``Everett I,'' ``Everett II''
would target the E-5 and E-6 population, involve the construction of
duplex homes on private land, and terminate at the end of a 10-year
period with the sell-off of units. Unlike ``Everett I,'' however,
``Everett II'' could include differential lease payments to adjust
housing costs so that rent plus utilities would be capped at a maximum
of 15 percent above the Basic Allowance for Housing for all enlisted
pay grades.
The Navy and Marine Corps have been working during the last year to
develop the first DON regional privatization initiative. The PPV
initiative for San Diego, CA, will include the privatization of nearly
9,000 family housing units and the construction of up to 2,400 new
homes. The DON has paid particular attention to detail to ensure the
success of this initiative, but also to serve as a role model for other
regional PPV's to follow. We expect to seek formal DON and DOD concept
approval of both Everett II and San Diego PPV's in the near future.
Four other projects, consisting of one Navy and three Marine Corps,
are also under concept development. The Navy project is in the
Northeast Florida region. The Marine Corps projects are at Marine Corps
Air Station Beaufort, SC; Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC, and
Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center 29 Palms, CA. Site assessments
have been completed in conjunction with the DOD Housing Revitalization
Support Office at these locations. PPV projects at other locations are
in preliminary discussions.
Transfer of Family Housing Funds to Military Personnel
Allowances.--There are a myriad of hurdles we must negotiate before we
can actually sign a PPV agreement with a developer to replace
Government owned housing or convert Government owned housing to a PPV.
At the point that the replacement or transfer occurs, we no longer have
to pay to operate and maintain the Government owned housing, and Navy
and Marine Corps families begin to collect a monthly housing allowance.
This uncertainty as to how long the process will take makes it
difficult to predict for budget purposes at what point in the fiscal
year we can reduce Family Housing Operations and Maintenance funds and
increase Military Housing Allowances.
military construction
Focus on Replacement Construction and Modernization
Our military construction, like that of recent years, continues our
approach of budgeting for only those projects that meet the highest
priority readiness needs of the Fleet and Fleet Marine Force, and their
Reserve Components. There are 37 Navy projects totaling $301.7 million
and 10 Marine Corps projects totaling $99.2 million, plus $8.9 million
for minor construction and $58.3 million for planning and design in the
fiscal year 1999 Military Construction, Navy budget. There are 3 Navy
reserve projects totaling $7.5 million and 2 Marine Corps reserve
projects totaling $4.9 million, plus $0.9 million for minor
construction and $2.0 million for planning and design in the fiscal
year 1999 Military Construction, Reserve budget.
As in the case of Family Housing, we want to first fix what we own.
We have concentrated most of our construction funds on replacement and
modernization projects. Fully three-quarters of the combined Military
Construction, Navy and Military Construction, Naval and Marine Corps
Reserve accounts are for replacement and modernization projects.
Examples include:
--A $32.0 million Berthing Pier at Naval Station, Norfolk, VA, that
will replace Pier 2. This pier has limited deck space, and
structural limitations that severely restrict mobile crane
access to the pier and limit pierside operations and nesting of
ships. Modernization of piers and wharfs are a particular Navy
concern with current readiness. The Navy has 361 piers, most of
which were built in the early 1940's and 1950's. Because of
their age and the need to berth newer deep draft, power
intensive ships, about 40 percent of Navy piers are considered
substandard (capable of supporting current use, but requiring
repair or modification) or inadequate (cannot be made adequate
through economically justifiable means). Pier projects tend to
be very expensive. This project is divided into two phases,
with construction of a new pier in fiscal year 1999, and
demolition of the adjacent inadequate pier in fiscal year 2000.
We are seeking full authorization of the $45.5 million project
in fiscal year 1999, with an appropriation request of $32
million in fiscal year 1999 and $13.5 million in advance
appropriation for fiscal year 2000.
--An $18.2 million Electrical Distribution System Upgrade for BRAVO
and MIKE Docks at Naval Station Pearl Harbor, HI. The project
would provide the power and electrical distribution needs for
the Arleigh Burke-class, power-intensive DDG-51 class ships and
fix electrical safety concerns.
--An $11.4 million Engineering Management Building at Naval Sub Base
Pearl Harbor, HI, that will convert warehouse space to
administrative space and allow consolidation of functions. This
facility is key to the regional maintenance effort previously
discussed.
--A $2.2 million Aircraft Engine Test Cell at Naval Air Station, New
Orleans, LA. This Naval Reserve project will provide an
enclosed facility with sound attenuation for testing F/A-18 jet
engines. Current testing is done on an existing foundation pad
under a small overhead cover with no sound attenuation.
--Two Bachelor Enlisted Quarters at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton,
CA, totaling $28.2 million to provide 700 spaces (maximum
utilization) for E1-E4 personnel. Marines are currently housed
in open bay facilities constructed in the 1940's and 1950's
that have fire, safety, and seismic concerns.
A few projects are intended to fix long-standing deficits,
including:
--A $5.3 million Bachelor Enlisted Quarters at Naval Support
Activity, Souda Bay, Crete, which will provide more housing due
to personnel increases to support new mission requirements.
--A $1.8 million Missile Magazine at Marine Corps Air Station
Beaufort, SC, which will reconfigure one ammunition storage
facility into a missile magazine and build one new missile
magazine. The existing magazines are too small to handle the
current generation of larger missiles, leading to storage,
loading and safety problems.
--A $4.1 million Reserve Center at Marine Corps Reserve Center
Galveston, TX, which will provide necessary facilities for
reserve training.
Quality of Life
There are a number of important quality of life projects included
in our fiscal year 1999 budget. Fully 23 percent of the Navy and 84
percent of the Marine Corps military construction is to meet quality of
life needs.
The single largest effort is the replacement construction and
modernization of Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQ's). The Navy has
included 5 projects totaling $59.8 million and the Marine Corps has 4
projects totaling $68.8 million for BEQ construction. These projects
will provide a maximum utilization of 918 new spaces for Sailors and
1,780 new spaces for Marines. All are to house permanent party enlisted
personnel. Four of the Navy projects are being built to the Department
of Defense 1+1 standard. This configuration consists of two individual
living/sleeping rooms with closets and a shared bath and service area.
Three Marine Corps projects have been granted a waiver to the 1+1
standard and will be constructed to an alternate 2+0 configuration
i.e., two persons per room. This will allow the Marine Corps to more
quickly improve quality of life for a larger number of Marines. One
Navy project will house enlisted Sailors assigned to Marine Corps Air
Station Kaneohe Bay, HI. It has been granted an interim waiver and
would be built 2+0 configuration because it is adjacent to other Marine
Corps BQ's also built to the 2+0 configuration. Similarly, the BEQ
project at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA (formerly Naval Air
Station Miramar) is being built to the 1+1 standard because it will be
adjacent to other BEQ's built to the 1+1 standard.
Our military construction program also includes two child
development centers (CDC): a $4.4 million CDC at Marine Corps Air
Station Cherry Point, NC, and a $3.7 million CDC at Naval Air Station
Key West, FL. The Navy continues to test the potential for outsourcing
CDC services in San Diego, CA, and issued an RFP on 30 January 1998 to
do so. Other quality of life projects include a $2.0 million Education
Center at St. Mawgan, United Kingdom; and an $8.0 million Mess Hall at
Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, SC.
Environmental Compliance and Safety
The Navy has several environmental compliance projects included in
the fiscal year 1999 budget, including:
--A $22.9 million Sewer Outfall Extension at Public Works Center
Pearl Harbor, HI, that would extend the sewer line that now
terminates in the harbor into open coastal waters. The current
situation is a Class 1 environmental violation because
nutrients in the effluents exceed State water quality standards
in the harbor.
--A $6.1 million Steam Condensate Return, also at Public Works Center
Pearl Harbor, HI, that would eliminate the untreated discharge
of high temperature steam directly in Pearl Harbor, in
violation of the Clean Water Act.
base realignment and closure
Realignment and Closure Status
We are implementing four rounds of base realignment and 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.
These closures and realignments include major Navy and Marine Corps
installations in Philadelphia, PA; Charleston, SC; Orlando, and
Jacksonville, FL; Seattle, WA; San Francisco, Long Beach, San Diego,
and Orange County, CA; Honolulu, HI, as well as other bases in Rhode
Island, Alaska, and Guam.
This has been a difficult and challenging journey for us as well as
the communities that hosted our ships, aircraft, Sailors and Marines
for so many years. Yet we, the Navy and Marine Corps team and the
communities, are making significant progress. As of the end of February
1998, we have completed the realignment or operational closure of 84
percent (150 out of 178) bases. Operational closure occurs when all
mission equipment and military personnel (with the exception of a small
caretaker cadre) have been disbanded or relocated to a ``receiving''
site. As of the end of fiscal year 1997, we had obligated 98.4 percent
of the $7.5 billion appropriated for Navy BRAC actions. This year and
next will see the majority of the remaining realignments and
operational closures occur, as we plan to complete actions at 12 bases
in fiscal year 1998 and 11 in fiscal year 1999. Four more are scheduled
in fiscal year 2000 and one in fiscal year 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Major Fiscal Year 1998 Realignment/Closures
BUPERS, Arlington, VA (R)
NAVFAC, Alexandria, VA (R)
NAVCRUITCOM, Arlington, VA (R)
NAS Dallas, TX (C)
FISC Oakland, CA (C)
Note: R=Realignment; C=Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC Costs and Savings
We have closed or realigned bases to help make the Navy's shore
infrastructure more proportional to its force structure and to provide
resources to recapitalize our weapons systems and platforms.
Our focus has been on quickly reaching realignment or operational
closure. This accelerates savings because it eliminates costs
associated with operating and maintaining the bases, such as costs for
utilities, fire and police protection, and maintaining the buildings,
grounds, utility lines, pipes, streets, roads, piers, wharves, runways,
warehouses, and homes.
These savings are substantial. As a result of the four BRAC rounds,
the DON will have saved through the end of fiscal year 1997 a total of
$5.6 billion. To achieve these savings, we have also had to spend money
to construct new buildings and expand utility systems at ``receiving''
bases. We have also had to move some personnel, equipment, ships and
aircraft to their new homeports. We have spent $7.5 billion in BRAC
related costs through the end of fiscal year 1997, for a net cost of
$1.9 billion. We are approaching the crossover point where the
cumulative savings of BRAC will exceed the cumulative costs. At the end
of this fiscal year, we expect net savings (cumulative savings minus
cumulative costs) to be +$1.4 billion.
By the end of fiscal year 2001, when all four rounds of BRAC will
be complete, we project that the DON will have spent $10.0 billion and
saved $15.7 billion, for net savings of $5.7 billion. Equally
important, beginning in fiscal year 2002, we will save an additional
$2.6 billion each year because we no longer operate and maintain those
bases. Environmental cleanup, however, will continue for a significant
period of time beyond fiscal year 2001 at some bases.
BRAC Property Disposal
As we approach the end of the realignment and closure process, we
are increasingly turning our attention to the next and more challenging
step: finishing environmental cleanup and disposing of the property.
While we are on the ``downhill'' side for attaining realignment and
operational closure, we are still very much on the ``uphill'' side for
attaining property disposal. The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process and Record of Decision is the vehicle we and the Local
Redevelopment Authority (LRA) use to consider and evaluate the many
competing concerns before we can convey property. These concerns
include evaluating historic preservation, air quality, noise, traffic,
natural habitat, and endangered species. We have to dispose of a total
of 91 BRAC properties, totaling 166,000 acres. Through the end of
January 1998, we had disposed of 33 properties, representing 8,700
acres. We expect to dispose of about 12 or more properties per year for
the next several years.
Our rapid closure actions present opportunities for affected
communities to accelerate their efforts towards promoting economic
reuse of the property. Our disposal strategy is designed to support
that effort. We have directed each BRAC closure base to develop a site
specific phased disposal strategy that supports the LRA plans for
redevelopment of each parcel of land. The Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC) issued guidance to its field activities last fall on
how to structure such disposal plans. We want to be both flexible and
creative in structuring disposal agreements, and are pursuing several
opportunities for CERCLA Section 334 early conveyance of property.
We want to support immediate reuse opportunities for the LRA
through Interim Leases and Leases In Furtherance of Conveyance. We have
prepared the necessary environmental documents, known as Finding of
Suitability to Lease (FOSL) and Finding of Suitability to Transfer
(FOST). These actions have allowed us to put in place over 100 Interim
Leases and one Lease In Furtherance Of Conveyances at BRAC locations.
We estimate that these leases have created several thousand jobs in
helping communities recover from the loss of the Navy and Marine Corps
presence. We also work closely with the LRA to resolve any personal
property transfer concerns.
We have assigned NAVFAC to manage caretaker functions along with
environmental cleanup responsibilities at all closed BRAC bases. We
want to dispose of the BRAC properties as soon as practicable so that
we can avoid caretaker costs and focus on our core mission. We have
established cooperative agreements at many bases where the LRA has
accepted responsibility for providing services such as fire, police,
water, sewer, electricity, gas, and ground care as part of the property
transition process.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC Success Stories
At the former Naval Air Station Glenview, IL, we have reached
agreement for an Economic Development conveyance to convey 920 acres.
We have previously conveyed by deed 645 acres to the LRA.
At Naval Training Center Orlando, FL, we have transferred 214
acres, known as the McCoy Annex, to the LRA. We have entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement for an Economic Development conveyance of 1,211
additional acres. We expect deed transfer of the remainder of the
property by May 1998.
We have executed a Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) for a
negotiated sale and port public benefit conveyance for 704 acres at the
former Naval Construction Battalion Center Davisville, RI.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental cleanup
We have also asked the bases, with NAVFAC assistance, to tailor
their environmental cleanup plans to best support the disposal strategy
for that base. Our objective is to complete the cleanup (attain
response complete or remedy in place) for each parcel of land in the
order that the LRA has determined is needed for actual redevelopment.
Each base has established BRAC cleanup teams comprised of remedial
managers from the Navy, State, and EPA to assess, prioritize, and
expedite the necessary cleanups. We want them to work to hasten cleanup
and reduce costs. We want to immediately convey the property once
cleanup is completed. There are substantial BRAC environmental funds in
our budget request to support this effort: $364 million in fiscal year
1998, and $280 million in fiscal year 1999. We recognize the dynamics
of reuse, and stand prepared to adjust cleanup plans as needed to
support evolving LRA needs. In short, environmental cleanup funds will
support cleanup of parcels that have the most immediate realistic
opportunity for conveyance and reuse by the LRA.
One measure of our progress in cleaning up contaminated property is
the number of acres that become suitable for transfer under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act
(CERFA). The DOD has developed categories of property in order to track
cleanup progress. Property in categories 1-4 is environmentally
suitable for transfer. Cleanup was either completed or unnecessary in
these areas. Property in category 5 indicates remedial investigations
or cleanup is underway. Properties in category 6 require cleanup, but
actions have not been started. Category 7 property has not yet been
completely evaluated and cannot be categorized yet. Since last fiscal
year, we have moved over one-third of category 5, 6, and 7 acres to
category 1-4. Two years ago, we completed (i.e., response complete or
remedy in place) 140 of the 1,000 sites at our closing bases. We have
now completed 400 as of October, 1997.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres (all BRAC)--As
of
-----------------------
September September
1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CERFA Cat 1-4................................... 107,833 143,100
CERFA Cat 5..................................... 11,260 1,596
CERFA Cat 6..................................... 7,572 6,395
CERFA Cat 7..................................... 39,194 14,768
-----------------------
Total..................................... 165,859 165,859
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are searching for ways to reduce the cost of cleanup. We are
using promising new cleanup technologies at a number of our BRAC sites.
These new technologies can reduce cost or expedite the cleanup process.
We are also working with regulators and communities to better tie
cleanup standards to the intended reuse. For example, both the LRA and
the Navy save cleanup costs if we can tie the need for a landfill cap
with the LRA need for a parking area or runway extension over the same
area.
We use a BRAC cost-to-complete index as a measure of our efforts to
reduce cleanup costs. Last year, our BRAC cleanup cost-to-complete (as
of the end of fiscal year 1996) was $2.5 billion. One year later, our
cost-to-complete (as of the end of fiscal year 1997) was $2.1 billion.
The reduction of $400 million is the result of execution of fiscal year
1997 appropriated funds and about $200 million in cost avoidance, such
as changes in risk based approaches to cleanup, new information on the
nature and extent of contamination, and use of new technologies for
study or cleanup.
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.
housing
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I was interested in your comments on privatization. You
seem to think that the enthusiasm for that program might be
losing a little bit of steam. Do you want to elaborate on that
just a little bit, give us some instances why that is
happening?
Mr. Pirie. Well, I think there are a number of things, in
addition to the fact that Milcon is the traditional way of
doing it. That is the way people are used to doing it and
certainly, if there is a project authorized and appropriated,
it is the quickest way for people to put a house on the ground.
The fact is that that house costs the taxpayer a lot more
money to maintain and operate than the equivalent house that we
could get through a public-private venture. But in any case,
the number and range of authorities that we received in the
Perry initiatives for public-private ventures is very
impressive, but it complicates the process of kind of working
through a deal in each individual location.
Each location has a different situation, a different
requirement for housing. So that matching the range of
authorities that we have on the one hand and the requirements
for housing we have on the other hand is a very complicated
process, one which we are beginning to learn a lot more about.
I will ask Admiral Nash to comment on this presently. We
have had some projects that have worked and are on the ground.
We have a substantial number of others that are just about to
break and be ready for requests for proposals. But it has been
slow. It has been an education process up and down the chain of
command. And I think we are beginning to see light at the end
of the tunnel.
Senator Burns. Some of these complications, if they are
different, is it different for each State? Is it building
codes? I realize it is hard to write any kind of legislation
that one size fits all, because Murphy's Law takes over right
away. In fact, it is more prevalent than what we sign here.
But where is the main areas of concern?
Mr. Pirie. Well, the range of authorities we have allow us
to, for example, contribute Government property as a stake in a
public-private venture or as a stake to guarantee occupancy or
simply to contribute cash. There are a variety of partnering
arrangements in public-private ventures that are appropriate,
and to figure out which one of these is best for a particular
location is not all that straightforward and not something we
are particularly used to.
For example, one that we have just gotten permission to go
forward with is a public-private venture in Albany, GA. That
involves using as our stake Marine Corps housing which is
essentially out in town, and we will contribute that to the
partnership. In return, our developer partner will build
quarters on the Marine Corps base and will be responsible for
maintaining those over the course of the lease for the
property.
Each one of these is going to be somewhat different, Mr.
Chairman.
brac cleanup
Senator Burns. Elaborate a little bit. It looks like, for
some unknown reason--give me a thumbnail sketch, environmental
cleanup, where you are behind as far as the Navy is concerned,
as far as moving some of our property into private hands,
environmental impact statements and environmental cleanup. Give
me your sketch of where we are and where we would like to be,
and how can we do it better?
Mr. Pirie. We do not see that environmental cleanup is
going to impede the closure or conveyance of any of the
properties that we have waiting. It is a very substantial job.
Environmental cleanup at BRAC properties involves substantially
having remedies in place before the properties can be conveyed
to the community.
The funding that we have in place now and in our program we
believe will be adequate to clean up the properties and make
conveyances in an orderly fashion. After the year 2001, the
BRAC accounts will expire and the money that will be required
to continue the cleanup at the remaining locations that are not
completed cleanup will have to move into the component and
environmental restoration accounts. So we will experience an
increase in our environmental restoration accounts at that
point.
Senator Burns. Give me a status of El Toro?
General Hayes. El Toro is still under consideration by the
reuse authority. There are some four or five options. Most of
the cleanup work we have done are in place. As Secretary Pirie
indicated, probably in 2001 we will have about a $10 million a
year monitoring requirement for whatever number of years, we
think 8 or 10 years.
Senator Burns. Will that property finally be conveyed to
private hands?
General Hayes. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. I hate to see old El Toro close up, but that
is progress, I guess.
In that respect, Mr. Secretary, what is the percent or what
is the total amount the Navy has spent on environmental costs
for BRAC installations for all previous rounds? What has your
figure been on that so far?
Mr. Pirie. Through fiscal year 1997, Mr. Chairman, we have
spent $1.2 billion in BRAC environmental cleanup.
Senator Burns. I think the taxpayers ought to know that
figure, because it is hefty and it takes away some of the
things that we should be doing probably with infrastructure.
But we also think it is very, very necessary in order to make
the properties saleable or presentable for the movement into
the private sector.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir; two things. One is that that is
exactly right. We are obligated to clean this property up so
that it can be reused by the community and contribute to their
economic development.
We are also obligated to clean up the environmental
contamination in any case. We will do it eventually. BRAC just
makes it necessary to do it on an accelerated schedule so that
we can meet the turnover schedule.
demolition
Senator Burns. Demolition program progressing?
Mr. Pirie. I think we are making good progress on it. I
will ask Admiral Nash to comment on it in more detail, but I
think we are getting something on the order of a 4-year return
on our investment for demolition. We are using about between
$30 and $40 million a year in a centrally managed account,
which is quite popular with the claimants. They want to get
these old buildings that eat up maintenance costs off the books
as well.
Admiral Nash?
Admiral Nash. Sir, I think it is progressing very well. As
Mr. Pirie says, it is very popular and we are moving along very
nicely. It is a good business decision and it is working well.
Senator Burns. Senator Murray, you have some questions?
housing
Senator Murray. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Pirie, a top priority for me has always been
quality of life for our men and women in uniform, and housing
is a big part of that. I see that in your budget this year you
are requesting a total of $1.2 billion for Navy family housing,
which is 13 percent less than the $1.37 billion that we
appropriated last year, and it is even less than you requested
in your own budget last year.
Yet you request this decrease in the midst of this
revitalization program you talk about in your statement. Can
you explain for the committee in more detail what your plans
for family housing are?
Mr. Pirie. Our plans are to use the money now on the books
for military construction projects in a number of locations to
seed public-private ventures and to produce more housing than
would otherwise have been produced from these accounts.
As I explained in my opening statement, it is a very
complicated business. It has gone a lot more slowly than I had
hoped it would go. But we are beginning to see some projects
develop. In Everett, of course, as you know, we have one that
has been quite successful and we are about to proceed with an
expansion of that project, which I think will be well met and
will meet most of our housing needs in that area.
We have a number of others: the Albany project that I had
mentioned for the Marine Corps.
Admiral Nash?
Admiral Nash. Yes, ma'am. We also have less houses because
some of them have left our inventory because of BRAC. We also
have worked hard in trying to reduce the cost of ownership
without reducing the quality of what we are doing. So some of
those savings come from those kinds of good business things.
Senator Murray. OK, I appreciate that. But I have to tell
you, when I visit bases in my home State it is a No. 1
priority. So I know the need is out there.
Admiral Nash. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. You mentioned the Dujardin Development Co.
of Everett and the 185 homes there that have been developed. Is
this a model that we can use perhaps for public-private around
the country?
Mr. Pirie. It appears to be working in Everett. It might
not be--there is no single housing solution for all of these
locations because they all have unique problems.
Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, in the Senate report
accompanying the fiscal year 1998 Milcon bill the committee
expressed its concern over the overcrowding of the school
district which serves Navy dependents at Bangor Submarine Base
in my home State. The problem is particularly acute for special
ed dependents. Bangor has been designated as a preferred
assignment for military personnel with special needs children,
including children with severe handicap conditions. The school
district currently transports these children to facilities that
are some distance from the home base because no facilities
exist on that base to meet their educational needs.
The committee in its report outlined this problem in a lot
of detail last year and directed the Department of Defense to
review the plan for a special needs in education center that
was developed by the school district. The committee also
directed DOD to provide a report on the viability of this plan
to the congressional defense committee not later than 60 days
after the enactment of the bill. We are obviously well past 60
days. Can you tell me where that report is?
Mr. Pirie. No; it is not in my area of cognizance, but we
will certainly look into it and I will get you an answer.
Senator Murray. I would appreciate that. We are waiting to
hear how we can proceed on that.
[The information follows:]
The report to which you refer is in staffing within the Office of
the Secretary of Defense. The expected delivery date to the
Subcommittee is on/about July 31, 1998.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, I have to go introduce a
constituent of mine at the Commerce Committee and I will be
gone about 5 minutes and return.
Senator Burns. I am on that committee, too. Tell them I am
tied up, would you? Thank you, Senator.
Senator Faircloth, do you have a question you might pose to
the U.S. Navy?
cecil field environmental impact statement
Senator Faircloth. I do, Mr. Chairman, and thank you.
One question, and whoever wants to answer it may. When is
the Navy going to comply with this committee's direction to
conduct an independent study to find the best solution for
relocation of the F-18 squadrons from Cecil Field?
Mr. Pirie. The Cecil Field environmental impact statement,
final environmental impact statement, was completed last week
and copies have, I believe, been conveyed to the committee.
Senator Faircloth. I am sorry. If you would speak more
directly into the microphone I would appreciate it.
Mr. Pirie. I am sorry. The Cecil Field environmental impact
statement, final environmental impact statement, was completed
last week and copies have been provided. The record of decision
will be entered in about 30 days, after the period for public
comment has expired. I am not aware of direction to conduct an
independent study.
Senator Faircloth. Who did the environmental impact
statement, sir?
Mr. Pirie. The fleet commander was primarily responsible
for developing the environmental impact statement, yes, sir.
Senator Faircloth. Who? What commanders?
Mr. Pirie. The Atlantic fleet commander, Admiral Reason.
Senator Faircloth. Is it going to be reviewed by the EPA?
Mr. Pirie. Yes; the environmental impact statement has to
be.
nas oceana construction
Senator Faircloth. Well, let me ask you, is there any
money, any request for funding, in this for work where there is
not yet a record of decision? In other words, are you
requesting money for Oceana?
Mr. Pirie. There may be military construction requests for
Oceana. I am not at all certain. But certainly not in
anticipation.
Senator Faircloth. Who could tell me, sir?
Admiral Nash. We have the project that you talked about.
There are three in the program here for 1999.
Senator Faircloth. I am sorry. If you would pull that mike,
I could hear.
Admiral Nash. Yes, sir; is that better?
Senator Faircloth. Yes; now tell me again.
Admiral Nash. We have three projects that are the 1999
program that is before the committee.
Senator Faircloth. For what?
Admiral Nash. That are for the relocation of FA-18's.
Senator Faircloth. Have you decided to do it? Have you
decided to move them to Oceana?
Admiral Nash. No, sir; as Mr. Pirie said, the EIS has been
done, and the record of decision [ROD] will be completed in
about 1 month. I have not decided--it is not mine to decide,
but I am not aware of any decision yet.
Senator Faircloth. Well, why would you be requesting money
for something that you might not do?
Admiral Nash. It had been past practice when we were moving
forward to try to anticipate what was going to happen, but it
is not predecisional, sir.
Senator Faircloth. In other words, it been the past
practice to get the money because you have made the decision
before you tell what you are going to do.
Admiral Nash. I do not know, sir.
Mr. Pirie. I think it is fair to say that all of the
options considered in the environmental impact statement
involve moving some of the FA-18's to Oceana.
Senator Faircloth. Well, how do you know how much money you
need if you do not know how many you are going to move?
Mr. Pirie. I think we will need, because of the fact that
we will be basing some of the FA-18's at Oceana, we will need
some facilities to support them. It is reasonable to expect
that.
Senator Faircloth. How do you know how much money to ask
for if you do not know how many you are going to move? How much
is some?
Admiral Nash. Sir, the three facilities are an addition to
a training facility, a weapons school, and a corrosion control
hangar that would be used, I believe, no matter how many were
moved.
Senator Faircloth. I wrote you a letter, to Admiral Ryan,
January 5, discussing this. I have never heard any response. I
assume Admiral Ryan has a velvet wastepaper basket and this
went in it.
Admiral Nash. I do not know, sir.
Senator Faircloth. I one time said on the Whitewater
Committee that getting information out of the White House was
like eating ice cream with a knitting needle. Getting
information out of the Navy on what you plan to do here is more
difficult. And yet, I feel a solid undercurrent that the do has
been done. You want money to expand Oceana, yet you do not know
what you are going to do there yet.
You got money last year to work on Oceana to get it ready
for these planes, did you not, Admiral Nash?
Admiral Nash. I am not sure, sir.
Senator Faircloth. Who would be sure?
Admiral Nash. I will ask that question and enter it for the
record if I may, sir.
Senator Faircloth. Well, if you would let me know this
afternoon.
Admiral Nash. I sure will do, yes, sir, I will.
[The information follows:]
The fiscal year 1998 President's Budget included the following
projects in fiscal year 1998 for Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia:
PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998--NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA, VA
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account/number Project title Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC III--P-160U................... Flight Simulator 9.0
Building Addition.
BRAC III--P-164U................... Aviation Maintenance 2.7
Facility Addition.
MILCON--P-712...................... Bachelor Enlisted 20.9
Quarters.
MILCON--P-453...................... Jet Engine Test Cell 5.0
Replacement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 1999 Amended President's Budget included the
following projects in fiscal year 1999 for Naval Air Station Oceana,
Virginia:
PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999--NAVAL AIR STATION OCEANA, VA
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account/number Project title Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC III--P-161U................... Training Facility Add/ 5.8
Renovations.
BRAC III--P-576U................... Corrosion Control 6.5
Hangar.
BRAC III--P-163U................... Strike Weapons School.. 4.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Faircloth. I am beginning to get a little tired,
Mr. Chairman, of the sliding and the gliding and the decisions
being made undercover, and you cannot get a straight answer.
Admiral Nash. Sir, I will personally call this afternoon.
Senator Faircloth. You will do what?
Admiral Nash. I will personally call you this afternoon and
tell you.
Senator Faircloth. I want to know what is going on, what
has been decided, how much money was spent there last year,
what this money is for.
Now, I hear clearly and loudly that 10 squadrons have been
assigned to Oceana and 2, as an appeasement to Senator
Thurmond, at Beaufort. Would you care to confirm that?
Admiral Nash. No, sir; I cannot confirm that.
Senator Faircloth. Could you, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Pirie. The preferred alternative in the final
environmental impact statement is for all 11 FA-18 squadrons
and the fleet replacement squadron to go to Oceana.
Senator Faircloth. Why?
Mr. Pirie. That is what is operationally best, and the
final environmental impact statement outlines the fleet
commander's reasoning in selecting that as the preferred
alternative.
Senator Faircloth. I do not think there was any doubt what
the environmental impact statement was going to say before they
even started it. I think the end was determined before the
statement was begun.
I cannot understand how you can say that Oceana is the best
place. That is a training squadron. What if a plane goes out of
control on landing or takeoff at Oceana? What is the
possibility of many civilian deaths or accidents as compared to
Cherry Point?
Mr. Pirie. I am not technically qualified to answer that
question, Senator.
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Now, those three facilities now at Oceana
are what now, Admiral?
Admiral Nash. Sir, a training facility addition, a weapons
school, and a corrosion control hangar.
Senator Burns. Now, those facilities would be built anyway,
whether any kind of a move is made?
Admiral Nash. They are associated with any kind of
movement, so I would say, no, they would be associated with
some sort of move.
Senator Faircloth. May I ask one more question, Mr.
Chairman?
Do you mean that they would not be built if you do not make
the move? Is that what you are saying?
Admiral Nash. I will check that. I am talking without
knowing. I will check that.
Mr. Pirie. We will have under any of the alternatives
considered in the environmental impact statement, we will have
six FA-18 squadrons and the fleet replacement squadron at
Oceana. So those facilities would be needed under any
circumstances, any of the options in the environmental impact
statement.
Senator Faircloth. All the training takes place over North
Carolina predominantly. Your bombing practice, all that is in
North Carolina, is that not right?
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir; the shore ranges are in North
Carolina.
Senator Faircloth. So you have got to fly from Virginia
Beach down to North Carolina to practice and then go back home.
All right, thank you.
Senator Burns. Going one step further on that, Admiral,
will there be a request for additional family housing at Oceana
as a result of a move, or can that be facilitated?
Admiral Nash. I understand that we can handle--because of
the availability of housing both in the economy and on the
base, there will be enough housing for those that come with the
additional squadrons.
Senator Burns. We have been joined by Senator Craig of
Idaho. Good morning to you.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. If you have a statement----
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG
Senator Craig. I do appreciate that. I have a leadership
meeting at 10 a.m., so I will be here until then. But I did
want to certainly recognize the Secretary and welcome him and
the Admiral. I appreciate your presence here today.
I want to thank you also for the work that is going on at
sometimes a little known and, therefore, not necessarily high
profile facility in the great naval State of Idaho.
Now, you all laugh out there. Now, you have got to
understand that I have a seaport, the most inland seaport in
the Nation. You did not recognize that, did you? And also a
very significant submarine facility, and it is that which I
want to visit with you only briefly about this morning.
acoustical research detachment center
First of all, Admiral and Mr. Secretary, thank you for the
work that is currently going on there to take some very old,
antiquated buildings, build a composite facility. We are
talking about the Acoustic Research Detachment Center at
Bayview. While there will not be additional projects in
relation to that facility until fiscal year 2000, and that is
the P-211 project, I want to thank you for that and tell you
that we watch that facility and I stand ready to assist to
assure its longevity and the quality of work that goes on
there, because the kind of robotics that we are using there and
at Lake Ponderay has tremendous opportunity not only for us as
a defensive measure, but for the savings of life and limb, if
you will, of our citizens and our men and women in uniform. So
let me thank you for that.
I have no further questions of either the Secretary or the
Admiral, but we watch that all with great interest. Thank you.
marine corps facilities
Senator Burns. General Hayes, basically at Pendleton and at
Lejeune you have still got a backlog of facilities and housing
there?
General Hayes. Yes, sir; we do.
Senator Burns. Give me an idea?
General Hayes. I think Lejeune is hard. They are both hard
to answer because we are taking a relook at the community and
what it offers. What is happening at Camp Lejeune is it is
becoming less affordable, where it used to be quite affordable.
So that resurvey work is going on. But order of magnitude is
probably, between the two of them--I would like to take it
exactly for the record, but it is substantial.
[The information follows:]
Yes. Those two installations represent our largest housing deficits
(projected as 4,845 units at Camp Pendleton and 3,680 at Camp Lejeune).
These deficits are based on market analyses completed in 1994 for
Pendleton and 1995 for Lejeune. Unless market conditions change or
allowances catch up with housing costs, we will not be able to reduce
those deficits. Because nearly all our Family Housing funding is
dedicated to operating and maintaining our existing inventory, we are
trying to satisfy some of the deficit reduction with Public Private
Venture housing projects.
Senator Burns. And Twentynine Palms?
General Hayes. Twentynine Palms, less of a problem. At
Twentynine Palms, as well as Lejeune and Pendleton, we are
looking at public-private venture, and in the case of
Twentynine Palms the potential, because of some land
flexibility there, for a whole base public-private venture.
Senator Burns. Do we still maintain a facility, an
amphibious facility at Oceanside, CA?
General Hayes. Well, as part of Camp Pendleton.
Senator Burns. That is all part of the Camp Pendleton?
General Hayes. Yes; it all is part of Camp Pendleton, yes,
sir.
Senator Burns. OK, all right.
We might sit down one of these days and take an inventory
and see where we are in those areas and your priorities. In
fact, that is where we get some of our best work done. But I
just like to have some kind of an idea where we are out there.
You know, still--it is like Senator Murray said, ``we are still
not getting any funds for our Guard and our Reserves. It seems
like that is always left up to the Congress to fight those
battles. Then when it comes it is usually called with a big
label on it that says ``pork'' for your State.''
But we go right back, and I want to emphasize that I think
the move, Mr. Secretary--we move from that kind of rhetoric to
a demand or a move to integrated forces. In other words, we
have a situation--we are going to talk to the Air Force next,
but we have a red horse organization in Great Falls now that
has both Air Guard and Regulars in that facility working
together on the base the same day and occupying some of those
positions.
So when we talk about Reserves and responsibilities of the
Reserves and our Guard, we talk about an integrated force. Yet
we do not have the facilities with those Guard, and I think
they deserve some of those kind of facilities, especially your
Reserve sectors.
I thank you, gentlemen, for coming this morning. If the
rest of the committee has any questions, we will submit them
for you and if you would submit it to the individual Senator
and to this committee I would appreciate that. We will probably
have some more questions as we look at this. As we look at the
supplemental, we also might have some questions with you
because evidently there are a couple of areas in there that
they do not know whether it is going to be O&M or Milcon. We
want to take a look at that and at what we are doing and our
requirements for Bosnia, Iraq, and a host of other things.
If you make yourself available for those questions I would
sure appreciate that.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir; absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much for coming this morning.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, as they are leaving, I do not
want to fail to recognize General Hayes and the Marines.
General Hayes. Thank you, Senator.
Additional committee questions
Senator Craig. You never know when Idaho will need the
Marines. Thank you, gentlemen.
General Hayes. Always.
Senator Craig. Always, that is right. [Laughter.]
[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
funding levels
Question. Mr. Secretary, what are the long-term implications of a
steady decline of MILCON funding to our Navy and Marine Corps
installations and infrastructure?
Answer. The steady decline in MILCON will result in a gradual
erosion in the ability of our shore infrastructure to support current
and future readiness needs of the fleet and Fleet Marine Force unless
we do something to reverse the current situation. We believe our
efforts at creating greater efficiency in our shore infrastructure will
reduce our total infrastructure needs, and allow our infrastructure
dollars to go further toward tackling repair and replacement backlogs.
I discussed a number of efficiency initiatives, including regional
maintenance of ships and aircraft, regionalization of base support
functions, outsourcing competitions, privatization of housing, and
building demolition in detail in my written statement. These efforts,
along with the request for legislation to establish two more rounds of
BRAC, will enable us to reduce unneeded capacity and to operate it more
efficiently and at lower cost.
Question. What is your backlog of real property maintenance
requirements for both the Navy and Marine Corps?
Answer. Navy = $2.5 billion; Marine Corps = $0.7 billion, for total
of $3.2 billion.
Question. What percentage of the plant replacement cost does the
Navy spend each year on maintaining those facilities? At that rate,
what is the average replacement cycle in terms of years?
Answer. We are spending approximately 1.7 to 1.8 percent of plant
replacement value per year on facility maintenance, compared to a goal
of 2.0 percent. This represents approximately a 63-year
recapitalization cycle, including MILCON and RPM.
housing privatization
Question. Mr. Secretary, explain for us the Navy's and the Marine
Corps' future plans with regard to family housing privatization?
Answer. It has long been Department of Defense policy to rely on
communities near military installations as the primary source of
housing for our service members. We program military family housing
only where there is insufficient suitable housing in the community. We
recently issued a new DoN housing policy that applies to existing Navy
and Marine Corps housing and the acquisition of new housing. Key
components include:
--We will look first to Public/Private Ventures (PPV's) for all new
housing construction, replacement construction, and improvement
needs;
--If a careful analysis of economic, quality and market factors
conclusively demonstrates that a PPV is not feasible, we may
turn to more traditional means of meeting requirements;
--We will evaluate family housing needs on a regional basis;
--We will use quality standards and amenities that the private sector
provides for similar income levels;
--We have set a goal of no out-of-pocket expense for future PPV's.
Where that would render a PPV not financially viable, we will
limit the out-of-pocket expense to no more than 15 percent
above BAH.
Question. Does the Navy intend to get out of the Family Housing
Business?
Answer. No. We do not see Public/Private Ventures as being the
ultimate end state for all our housing, but we certainly see a gradual
and perhaps significant decline in the number of homes that we own and
operate.
Question. When will you have some ``lessons learned'' from
executing the privatization contracts in Washington and Texas?
Answer. The entire process has been--and continues to be--a
learning experience. From the earlier stages of project concept
development, we learned how crucial it is to get not only the local
commanders involved, but service members--the ultimate customers--as
well. This lesson will manifest itself in the upcoming PPV in Albany,
GA. There, we will have a representative from the Command Master
Chief's office sit on the Source Selection Board; and, service members
will also be a part of the project's technical evaluation process.
Also, we have consistently heard the message that affordability is
the most important criteria for these and future PPV's. Our PPV policy
guidance signed out this past January specified that it is the
Department's goal to structure projects with no out-of-pocket costs for
the service members. Project evaluation criteria will reflect the
relative importance of affordability compared to such items as unit
size, amenities and support services.
Finally, we have learned that we must restructure the budget
process to accommodate the nuances of the PPV acquisition timeline. We
are still learning how--and how not--to use the privatization
authorities. However, we do know that the earlier we are able to assess
an installations requirements, the better able we will be in developing
an acquisition strategy that addresses its problems.
brac funding
Question. Mr. Secretary, what percent of the fiscal year 1999
funding request will be allocated to environmental studies, clean-up
and restoration at BRAC installations?
Answer. The Department of the Navy's fiscal year 1999 Amended BRAC
Budget Estimate that was submitted by the President to the Congress in
February 1998, included a total budget request of $622,932,000.
Restoration accounted for $198,667,000 or 32 percent; Compliance
accounted for $81,202,000 or 13 percent; and environmental studies
accounted for $489,000 or about one-tenth of one percent.
Question. What is the total amount that the Navy has spent on
environmental costs for BRAC installations for all previous rounds?
Answer. Through the end of fiscal year 1997, we have spent a total
of $1.4 billion in BRAC environmental funds, consisting of about $100
million in environmental planning (studies), $650 million in
environmental compliance, and $650 million in environmental cleanup
(restoration).
Question. I understand that the Navy has approximately 90 BRAC
properties to dispose of yet. What major problems are there with
returning these bases to the communities?
Answer. For all four BRAC rounds, Navy has to dispose of a total of
91 BRAC properties. We have currently disposed of 36 properties; 42
properties are operationally closed but not disposed pending
environmental cleanup (8 of these were closed just last fall); and 13
properties are not yet operationally closed. All but 7 properties are
planned for disposal by 2001. Navy sees no major problems in
transferring former Navy properties to the local communities.
demolition program
Question. Mr. Pirie, explain for us your demolition program and
provide us an estimate of how much money you are saving as a result of
tearing old buildings down?
Answer. The goal of our demolition program is to eliminate
unneeded, dilapidated facilities and their associated operating and
maintenance costs. On average, we expect to recover the demolition
investment in 4 to 6 years through reduced maintenance costs.
Question. Is this program adequately funded in fiscal year 1999?
Could you use more money if it were made available?
Answer. Yes, this program is adequately funded in fiscal year 1999.
Our fiscal year 1999 budget includes $38 million ($33 million Navy; $5
million in Marine Corps) for a centrally managed demolition account.
There are an additional $25 million in fiscal year 1999 demolition
funds included in other appropriations (MILCON, Family Housing
Construction, Navy Working Capital Fund, non-centrally managed O&M).
Like all other infrastructure programs, we could use additional funds.
However, the current demolition budget request represents a reasonable
balance with all other DoN funding needs.
Question. Is there much resistance to this program from local
commanders not wanting to give up facilities on their bases?
Answer. No. To the contrary, there is great interest to use the
centrally funded account. In the past, our base commanders had a
difficult time finding money to support demolition needs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth
Question. When is the Navy going to comply with this Committee's
direction to conduct an independent study, with a weighted comparison
of the pros and cons of all scenarios, to find the optimal solution for
the relocation of F/A-18 squadrons from Cecil Field?
Answer. In response to the Committee's direction, the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was sent to you under a cover
letter dated September 12, 1997. Weighing the pros and cons of each
alternative is inherent in the decision making process. The public
review period following the release of the Final EIS will close on
April 20, 1998. We will analyze all public comments received and, will
balance all the relevant factors before reaching a decision.
Question. Does the President's fiscal year 1999 Military
Construction budget request include any funding related to BRAC rounds
where there is not yet a Record of Decision? More specifically, there
is not yet a ROD for moving Cecil Field Hornets anywhere. Does the Navy
want to start or continue construction at Oceana, VA, or Beaufort, SC,
related to the Cecil Field move, in anticipation of a decision?
Answer. Projects for the realignment of F/A-18 aircraft from NAS
Cecil Field and the realignment of E-2 aircraft from the former NAS
Miramar are included in the President's 1999 budget request. The Navy
has not started construction for the F/A-18 realignment at any of the
potential receiving sites nor will the Navy begin construction until
the Record of Decision (ROD) is signed.
Question. Regardless that a minimum number of squadrons that would
go to Oceana under any scenario in the Environmental Impact Statement,
how do the military construction needs change if more than six
squadrons are sent to Oceana? How can the Navy design properly sized
buildings and adequate maintenance capacity if there is still
uncertainty about how many planes and personnel will ultimately have to
be supported?
Answer. Construction needs at NAS Oceana for each of the Alternate
Relocation Sites (ARS) are identified in Section 2.2 of the Final EIS.
A summary of the construction cost at NAS Oceana for each ARS is
provided below:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAS Oceana Total
ARS (Number of F/A-18 squadrons at NAS construction construction
Oceana) cost cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) and 11
fleet squadrons............................ 99.1 99.1
FRS and 9 fleet squadrons................... 95.0 106.9
FRS and 8 fleet squadrons................... 87.5 105.1
FRS and 6 fleet squadrons................... 68.8 240.0
FRS and 6 fleet squadrons................... 68.8 135.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many projects for BRAC related actions have been designed based on
the EIS preferred alternative. Accordingly, projects for the
realignment of F/A-18 aircraft from NAS Cecil Field have been designed
based on the preferred alternative. In BRAC related actions, if the
preferred alternative is changed in the ROD, we have the ability to
move projects, change projects and/or initiate new projects with
notification to Congress.
Question. How did the Navy settle on the five options in the
Environmental Impact Statement? Please describe the screening process
and provide me a list of all other options considered which were
determined to be inferior to these five final options. Please also
explain for each option that was eliminated what factor(s) caused it to
be eliminated and what were each option's positive attributes.
Answer. Installations were screened first for necessary capacity
and support infrastructure then for their ability to meet various
operational criteria. Through that process, various installations and
alternative basing scenarios were considered, but only five were
determined to be fully feasible, reasonable alternatives. The five
alternatives were given a full comparative analysis in which economic,
environmental, and social concerns were evaluated. The remainder were
eliminated from further analysis as not being feasible, with a short
explanation in the EIS as to why (as required by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations).
The following alternatives were considered, but eliminated from
detailed analysis; an explanation for this elimination is also
provided.
No action (aircraft remain at NAS Cecil Field).......... Closure of NAS Cecil Field mandated by BRAC 95.
Single-siting at MCAS Cherry Point..................... Not consistent with the BRAC 95 Commission goal of
using existing infrastructure to the greatest extent
possible.
Single-siting at MCAS Beaufort.......................... Not consistent with the BRAC 95 Commission goal of
using existing infrastructure to the greatest extent
possible.
Triple siting........................................... Unacceptable because of operational constraints and
high support costs associated with maintaining and
operating F/A-18 assets in multiple locations.
Separating the F/A-18 FRS from fleet squadrons.......... Unacceptable because of specific training, logistical,
and maintenance interrelationships between the FRS
and fleet squadrons
Moving assets to create capacity........................ Inconsistent with the intent of the 1995 BRAC
Commission recommendations.
Section 2 of the Final EIS provides a more detailed explanation of
the screening process and alternatives considered, but eliminated from
detailed analysis.
Question. The Final Environmental Impact Statement states that cost
estimates for noise mitigation at schools and churches were not
developed. How, then, can the Navy know whether or not the value of
reducing environmental and noise factors around the densely populated
Hampton Roads area exceeds any perceived operational downside impact of
multi-site relocation for these squadrons? Please explain how you can
compare the true value of the environmental benefits of sending fewer
squadrons to Oceana if you did not consider these, and perhaps other
mitigation costs.
Answer. During development of the ARS's, it became apparent that
relocating the F/A-18 aircraft to NAS Oceana would result in
significant aircraft noise impacts. Although ARS 2 and 3 involve dual
siting (placing some aircraft at MCAS Beaufort and MCAS Cherry Point,
respectively), ARS's 4 and 5 were specifically developed to reduce
noise impacts around NAS Oceana. ARS's 4 and 5 displace the largest
number of aircraft from NAS Oceana which is considered to be
operationally acceptable. Both the Draft EIS and the Final EIS clearly
identified that significant noise impacts would result from relocating
F/A-18 aircraft to NAS Oceana.
Question. How does the value of Marine and Navy inter-service
operability compare to what the Navy believes is the downside to multi-
site relocation?
Answer. Benefits of joint basing of Navy F/A-18 aircraft with
existing Marine Corps F/A-18 aircraft at MCAS Beaufort are included in
the Final EIS. Benefits include: (1) training efficiency through the
use of the existing flight simulator facility at MCAS Beaufort; (2)
maintenance efficiency through utilization of existing MCAS Beaufort F/
A-18 maintenance assets, thereby eliminating the need for multiple
spare part/equipment stocks or turnaround times necessary to get parts
to and from a single repair site; and (3) personnel efficiency by
eliminating the duplication in personnel inherent to siting aircraft at
locations without existing F/A-18's. Realigning two F/A-18 fleet
squadrons to MCAS Beaufort would also have the added advantage of
collocating Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18 squadrons, which comprise one
carrier air wing. (See Section 2 of the Final EIS.)
Question. You have used a 30-year life cycle for comparing the
relocation scenarios. Why? The planes will not be in service that long.
How would the Net Present Values of the scenarios compare under a more
realistic, shorter life cycle?
Answer. There are two different types of assets, aircraft and
facilities, and two different corresponding expected service lives. The
expected service life is 12 years for military aircraft and 50 years
for military facilities (U.S. Department of Commerce data from 1925-
1985). The Navy's primary investment in the BRAC relocation is
facilities; the aircraft have already been procured.
The Navy's facilities will certainly outlast the life of the F/A-18
given the respective service lives. Historically, the Navy has used a
period of 25 years for the economic life of facilities (Naval
Facilities Engineering Command Instruction P-442, Economic Analysis
Handbook of June 1986). However, based on guidance contained in the
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-94 of October
29, 1992, the Navy used a period of 30 years for the life-cycle cost
analysis.
Question. In order to come up with life-cycle costs, many unknown
factors had to be estimated. Did the Navy use point estimates or range
estimates for these unknown factors? If a range of estimated values is
appropriate, please give me the range of Net Present Values that result
over the reasonable ranges of assumptions.
Answer. Life-cycle costs are point estimates based on historical
information. Although assumptions were required for such items as mode
of transportation and cost of lodging for training, these items are not
considered ``unknown.''
Question. From a safety perspective, which is better: more take-
offs and landings and training flights in and over highly populated
areas or in and over less densely populated areas? What value does the
Navy place on the safety of the local populations under the various
relocation options?
Answer. From a safety perspective, flights over less densely
populated areas are better than flights over more densely populated
areas.
The Navy places a strong emphasis on the safety of local
populations. Through the Navy's Air Installations Compatible Use Zone
Program (AICUZ), we continually strive to protect health, safety, and
welfare of civilian and military personnel.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Stevens
navy presence on adak
Question. Mr. Secretary, what is the status of the interim leasing
arrangement with the Aleut Corporation for Adak?
Answer. Since Congress authorized commercial leasing last year,
Navy entered into a crew transfer license with the Adak Reuse
Corporation (ARC), the local redevelopment authority for Adak, which
was subsequently modified to authorize cargo transfers as well.
Pursuant to that license, ARC has sponsored several crew and cargo
transfers at Adak by fishing vessels operating in that region. Most
recently, in early March 1998, ARC authorized American Seafoods Co. to
transfer nearly 1,000 tons of fish product and refuel several vessels
at Adak. Navy also authorized ARC to sponsor three cruise ship visits
to Adak during 1997 and conduct island tours for ship passengers. The
Navy offered a proposed interim lease to the ARC on February 17, 1998.
This lease would authorize a wide range of commercial reuses. ARC has
recently provided comments on the proposed lease, and we expect it to
be available for signature very soon.
Question. I understand that the Navy must still approve every
visitor to Adak. How long does the Navy intend to maintain that policy
and for what reason?
Answer. Navy policy requires two day advance notice for approval of
visitors to Adak. The entire inhabited portion of Adak is a public land
withdrawal which is Navy responsibility. Navy, through its base support
contract, is the sole source for all services to the island population,
which is exclusively made up of Government contractors and Government
employees executing and managing ongoing contracts. Navy provides all
housing, all food service, all on-island law enforcement, all on island
transportation, and all medical services. The availability of these
services is very limited. Without this clearance procedure, there would
be no way to control access to the island and ensure that facilities
are available to accommodate visitors to this harsh, isolated location.
The island clearance process enables the Navy, other Government
entities, or the Adak Reuse Corporation to sponsor visitors and assure
that services are available to accommodate them. It applies equally to
official Government visitors, Navy contractors, and those visiting for
reuse related purposes. This process also enables screening for those
persons who have been excluded from Adak for past conduct on the island
which is incompatible with good order and discipline, such as drug or
alcohol abuse, and those with recent felony convictions. Additionally,
there are no Customs or Immigration capabilities at Adak and the island
clearance process assures that all foreign visitors have been properly
cleared for entry into the United States prior to arrival at Adak.
The Navy intends to maintain this policy until responsibility for
all aspects of support for all island visitors is assumed by others.
Question. As you know, there are a number of families who would
like to relocate to Adak. Explain to me why the Navy has not approved
their request.
Answer. The Navy has authorized visits by family members of
contractor employees for up to 30 days, but it is premature to
authorize permanent civilian residence on Adak. Under present law,
given the wildlife refuge status of the property, there is no authority
for a permanent civilian community on Adak, and the Navy contractor
employees there now will leave as the environmental cleanup work is
completed between now and the end of 1998. While legislation to remove
a portion of the property from the wildlife refuge and transfer it to
The Aleut Corporation has been introduced in the Congress as S.1488,
this legislation is predicated upon a Transfer Agreement between the
United States, represented by the Departments of Interior and Navy, and
The Aleut Corporation. Despite many months of discussions, the parties
have not been able to conclude that Agreement, and there is significant
uncertainty about whether such an Agreement can be achieved.
The Navy does not have the capability to provide support services
on Adak to dependents, and the eight Navy personnel remaining on Adak
do not have accompanying dependents. There is no political subdivision
of Alaska State government with jurisdiction over Adak which can take
responsibility for public services for a civilian community, nor does
it seem prudent for Federal or State government to invest in providing
such services until the future of such a community beyond 1998 is known
with relative certainty.
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, USAF, CIVIL ENGINEER, DEPUTY CHIEF
OF STAFF FOR INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS
MAJ. GEN. PAUL A. WEAVER, USAF, DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
BRIG. GEN. RALPH S. CLEM, DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF, AIR FORCE
RESERVE
opening statement of conrad burns
Senator Burns. We will now hear from our second panel,
which is representing the U.S. Air Force. We have the Honorable
Rodney Coleman, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations and Environment--
always nice to welcome you back--General Lupia, the Civil
Engineer, and we have had a great working relationship; and
Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver, Director of the Air National Guard; and
also Brig. Gen. Ralph Clem, Deputy to the Chief of the Air
Force Reserve.
Gentlemen, I appreciate your being with us today. We look
forward to hearing your testimony. I think I will say that
again we are looking at reduced funds. Some way or other we
have to turn this around. I have a feeling that that money is
going somewhere else. When we spend it it is OK, but when
somebody else spends it it is waste. As you know, we all try to
protect our turf.
First of all, let me congratulate the Air Force for the
operation--I mentioned it just briefly a while ago--at the
Great Falls Air Force Base, where we have integrated up there
with Guard and Regulars. I visited with the people up there,
both the enlisted on the ground and the officers, and they say
it is working out pretty well.
I like the idea because if there was one thing that we
learned, I think, in 1991, that getting those units together
and getting them to go all in the same direction was a
challenge. We met that challenge and I think we overcame it,
but I like the idea of being a little more prepared. When you
go into an emergency situation it is a bad time for on-the-job
training. We like to be trained and at least be on the same
frequency as we move.
So, Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming in this morning. I
appreciate that very much, and we look forward to your
statement. You might introduce your guests.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, before he does that, may I
make a brief opening statement, since I am going to have to
split?
Senator Burns. Sure, you may. Any time the leadership comes
in and wants to make a brief opening statement, you just let
them do it.
statement of senator larry craig
Senator Craig. You are kind, but I did want to recognize
Secretary Coleman and Generals all and tell you, first of all,
how appreciative we are as a State delegation in the work that
we have been able to do with you in the enhancement of the
training range facilities at Mountain Home Air Force Base. That
has moved along well. It is moving now as planned, timely. And
I must say that the ability to bring all of the forces together
appears to be working at this moment, and we are tremendously
appreciative of that.
I was in that community a few weeks ago. They are very
enthusiastic about the range and what it offers to the
composite wing and the whole development of that mission at
Mountain Home Air Force Base.
Obviously, the initial $2.4 million for construction and
the $1 million for land acquisition in your budget I think
continue to recognize for us the support that is necessary. It
is a strong signal to all involved as it relates to the future
of that range and the capability of that facility. So let me
thank you for that. We enjoy working with you and we enjoy
having the Air Force in our home State of Idaho. You are a
great partner and a great neighbor, and we appreciate it. Thank
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. And keep in mind, we have got a lot more air
space in Montana. That is big sky country up there.
Senator Craig. Well, but ours is clear and cleaner.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burns. It does not take very long to get to either
place, I will tell you that.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming. Mr. Coleman, make
your statement.
statement of rodney a. coleman
Mr. Coleman. We thank you, Senator Craig, for your support
on the enhanced training Idaho [ETI]. It is a big help to us.
Mr. Chairman, it is good to be back. A lot has transpired
since we were here last year. The Department of Defense has
issued its ``Quadrennial Defense Review'' [QDR] and the defense
reform initiative [DRI] and, as you know, the military
strategy, the national military strategy, states that we need
to shape and respond and prepare now for an uncertain future,
and the QDR contains and balances the overall defense program
to support that strategy, and the DRI offers three innovative
approaches for executing that strategy.
As you know, the DRI suggests that we adopt new business
practices, streamline our operations through competitive
sourcing, and eliminate unneeded infrastructure. I believe that
we are on target and provide a clear roadmap for facilities
investments.
However, in order to embrace this military strategy and
carry out the QDR and the DRI, I also firmly believe that we
must be a seamless Air Force, which we are. Mr. Chairman, you
know that two-thirds as many of our people today are deployed
to four times as many places as in 1989, which is just 9 years
ago. That remarkable feat could not be done nor in the future
can it be done without what we term a seamless total Air Force.
As you read in my written testimony, this thread of
seamlessness is woven throughout our $1.5 billion Milcon and
family housing budget, for it alone provides the balance needed
to sustain force readiness, force modernization, and ignite the
revolution in military affairs.
With respect to the Guard and Reserve, we have kept their
must-have military construction needs in the forefront of our
Milcon investment strategy, and that is why you see a National
Guard Milcon budget that is comparable to Air Combat Command,
our premier fighting command. In addition, you will see that
new mission funding for the Guard is greater than our European
and Pacific Commands.
In concert with this balanced approach is our continued
commitment to examining our internal operations to support the
activities to determine where we can right-size and demolish
unnecessary structures and enhance joint use of facilities with
other services, as well as truly embrace the revolution in
business affairs through better business practices.
As you know, base realignment and closure, or BRAC, rounds
are a means of attaining these infrastructure reduction goals.
And as you know, Mr. Chairman, we fully support two more BRAC
rounds, as requested by the Secretary of Defense. As with our
previous submissions, installation programs continue to reflect
hard decisions and tough choices. The Air Force corporate
strategy for the installation support program includes
supporting quality of life priorities like family housing and
buying out the gang-latrine dormitories, supporting level one
environmental programs like the ETI in Idaho, and supporting
our new mission beddown and core modernization. Now that our
overseas drawdown is stable, we are investing in our remaining
overseas bases and targeting dorm construction for our single
members.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to personally thank the
committee for its strong support of the Air Force Milcon
program over the past 4 years that I have been in office. Your
commitment resulted in countless benefits to Air Force
readiness, retention, recruiting, and training.
prepared statement
I believe that this year's Milcon submission does two
things, Mr. Chairman: First, it reflects the corporate
priorities supporting the total seamless Air Force vision;
second, it balances our commitment to the intentions of the QDR
and the DRI, while ensuring that we maintain a quality of life
for our people.
We will be glad to entertain any of your questions of you
and Senator Murray.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of 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 1999 Military Construction
(MILCON) Program.
overview
We must be a seamless Air Force! We have a national military
strategy that states shape, respond, and prepare now for an uncertain
future. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) confirms that strategy and
balances the overall defense program to support that strategy. What we
see emerging now is that the QDR is not an end in itself, but rather
the beginning of a debate that will shape the future of our military
force. Thus, we have moved from the cold war to this era of peace
troubled by regional conflict. The Air Force has been called upon to
accept an ever-widening array of peacekeeping missions, wartime
commitments and an ever-increasing number of deployments. In today's
Air Force, two-thirds as many forces deploy to four times as many
places as in 1989. This remarkable feat could not be done--and cannot
in the future be done--without a seamless total force.
The total force policy has guided decisions about how people--
reservists, national guardsmen, active duty, retired military, Federal
civilian, service auxiliaries, and contractors--are structured to
protect the nation's interest. We often talk about a ``seamless total
force'' as though ``seamlessness'' is a spontaneously occurring state
of nature--a foregone conclusion. Nothing can be farther from the
truth. Seamlessness is the product of mutual respect won through hard
work and consummate professionalism. Therefore, we must cherish the
covenant of ``seamlessness'' within the Air Force. We now know and
understand that no one can ``go it alone.''
Seamlessness is not a panacea; however, it enables us to
aggressively manage the most formidable obstacles to troop retention
and readiness--OPSTEMPO and PERSTEMPO. Consequently, given the
resulting increased OPSTEMPO and PERSTEMPO of our very capable and
ready guard and reserve units, we must keep their ``must have''
military construction needs in the forefront of our strategy as we move
our Air Force into the 21st century.
We know that seamless support operations play a critical role in
enabling the Air Force to live, train, and execute our National
Security Policy. In order to support the total force, these support
functions must become better, faster, and cheaper. They must be better
because quality infrastructure, particularly installations, contribute
to a quality of life that improves morale, retention, and hence the
readiness of the force. They must be cheaper in order to fund force
modernization to maintain battlefield dominance. Thus, we have adopted
an approach to continually examine internal operations and support
activities to determine where we can right-size, consolidate like
functions, demolish, enhance joint-use of facilities among other
services, and embrace the revolution in business affairs through better
business practices. All of these are focused on improving the
efficiency and performance of the Air Force facility support structure.
Every year we balance installation support operations, while
accepting a greater level of risk. 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 in
support of national strategies and the QDR. 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 (QOL). 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.
--Incorporate environment, health, and safety into core business
practice to lower cost and improve performance while continuing
to fund critical environmental projects to meet compliance
requirements.
The Air Force recognizes that we must look at our installation
facility requirements differently than in the past. That is why we must
embrace the business revolution through better business practices. This
includes the indoctrination of private sector business practices into
everything we do: time management; paperwork; delegation of
responsibility; production; accountability; customer focus; and
attitude. Improved business practices led our transition to the Air
Force corporate process, outsourcing, privatizing, and people first
programs. All of these things will be melded into design templates for
our installations in the 21st 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.
Mr. Chairman, as we emphasize our seamless support requirements and
desire to use better business practices, I would like to proceed now to
discuss the major program areas of our fiscal year 1999 MILCON budget
request. I will review the total force military construction program to
include discussion of the military family housing program. Finally, I
will address the Air Force perspective on the DOD request for Base
Realignment and Closure accounts as stated in the QDR.
air force military construction budget
The Air Force MILCON Program consists of five principal areas: new
mission, current mission, planning and design and unspecified minor
construction, environment, and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). 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. Planning and design and unspecified
minor construction include funds to design our construction projects
and a small program to handle urgent, unforeseen construction
requirements. The environmental program consists of those regulatory
compliance projects that must be accomplished to avoid increased health
or safety risks to people on or off our installations. The BRAC program
supports the transfer of property at closure installations to
communities for economic reinvestment.
Our total Air Force military construction budget request for fiscal
year 1999 is $1.55 billion. This request includes $1.47 billion for
active duty military construction ($455 million for traditional MILCON
and $1.016 billion for military family housing), $34.8 million for Air
National Guard MILCON, $10.5 million for Air Force Reserve MILCON, and
$34.1 million for BRAC MILCON.
the total air force military construction program
Similar to last year, the Air Force's fiscal year 1999 military
construction and family housing programs were developed using a
facility investment strategy with the following objectives: Maintain
what we own; Accommodate new missions; Maintain quality of life
investments; Optimize use of public and private resources; Continue
demolition program; Reinvest overseas; and Continue environmental
leadership.
Program Overview
Given the success of the corporate Air Force process, we continue
to consider the Air Force total obligation authority as one pot of
money. Those funds are systematically meted out based on the most
urgent, corporate needs of the total force. The strategy for allocation
of the funds is inextricably tied to Major Commands (to include the Air
Force Reserve and Air National Guard), Chief of Staff, and Secretary of
the Air Force priorities.
The Major Commands submitted a prioritized, unconstrained list of
their construction requirements. The MILCON integrated process team,
used a proven weighting matrix to implement the strategy to establish a
cross-cutting investment program. The result is an integrated priority
list based on the most urgent needs of the total Air Force. The list
integrates 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 final review and approval.
Current Mission
``Maintain what we own'' is the investment strategy underlying our
current MILCON Program. This concept results in identifying the minimum
requirements to sustain readiness and quality of life while attempting
to reduce the requirements via privatization and demolition. This
strategy is rooted in the stewardship entrusted to us for maintaining
eighty-seven major installations. We are still not looking to increase
our maintenance dollar spending on infrastructure or new facilities.
Conversely, we continue to target demolition of worn out or obsolete
facilities and infrastructure in order to reduce reoccurring operations
and maintenance costs. For example, we demolished over seven million
square feet of facilities over the past two fiscal years.
This year's current mission MILCON program consists of 33 projects
totaling $286 million. These projects include a variety of facilities
at a number of installations to include: a Control Tower at Selfridge
Air Guard Base, Michigan; an Air Force Reserve Aircraft Maintenance
Facility at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama; a Child Development Center
at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland; and Dining Facilities at
Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina, and McGuire Air Force Base,
New Jersey.
We will continue our vigil to effectively use available resources
to determine what we need, to care for what we own, to renovate or
replace worn out facilities, and to look for opportunities to
consolidate functions in retained facilities.
Accommodate New Missions: Support Core Modernization, Beddown of New
Missions, And Expansion of Existing Missions
Our people deserve to be equipped with the right tools to
accomplish their missions. The Air Force modernization program is
designed to enhance the unique capabilities embodied in our specialized
core competencies. These competencies provide the rapid, precise, and
global response that gives our combatant commanders the necessary
options to respond to regional conflicts in support of the national
defense strategies.
Military construction is needed to support weapon system beddowns
such as the C-17 and the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), or improve
personnel training by constructing the Enhanced Training Range in
Idaho. The entire MILCON program supporting new mission requirements
consists of 27 projects totaling $137.6 million.
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. The
fiscal year 1999 program includes several facilities at McChord Air
Force Base. These projects include a Ramp/Hydrant System, Maintenance
Facilities, and a Shortfield Assault Strip. The total program for
fiscal year 1999 is $71 million.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
The UAV program is based at Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary
Airfield, Nevada. It is designed to provide long endurance tactical
reconnaissance of the battlefield. The new mission beddown for two
squadrons of 45 unmanned vehicles and 566 persons includes a Squadron
Operations Facility, a Communications Maintenance Facility, and a
Logistics and Training Facility for a total of $15 million in fiscal
year 1999.
Enhanced Training In Idaho (ETI)
The Air Force proposes to build a range on Bureau of Land
Management land in southwest Idaho and modify airspace for local
training by Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, crews. The multi-year
range program begins with a $2.4 million construction project and a $1
million land acquisition. The ETI attempts to balance realistic local
training with careful consideration of environmental, cultural, and
economic concerns. The ETI also simulates real-world scenarios and
allows aircrews to plan and practice complex missions. In addition to
providing realistic training, ETI's close proximity to Mountain Home
Air Force Base also enables crews to convert time currently spent in
transit into actual training time. The range includes a 12,000-acre
drop site; a 640-acre and four 5-acre no-drop, simulated target areas;
and ten 1-acre and twenty .25-acre emitter sites. The total fiscal year
1999 MILCON is $3.4 million for this program.
Quality of Life
We can not effectively plan for the future needs of our Air Force
community unless we start at the beginning, and our beginning is
people. Military personnel readiness was in serious trouble by the end
of the 1970's; and enthusiasm for a decent quality of life continues to
be the only approach to both retain experienced personnel in the
service and offer an attractive living environment to those aspiring to
serve their country. Consequently, we believe that improved quality of
life for our personnel translates into enhanced readiness as a result
of our deployed airmen not worrying about the conditions of their
families.
The Department of the Air Force firmly believes that our people are
the most important asset of our service. The Air Force recognizes the
correlation between readiness and quality of life for our people; we
succeed in our mission by putting people first. They are the foundation
of our strength, and we must recruit, train, and retain the highest
quality force possible. If we are to be successful, then this seamless
Air Force team must take care of our people and their families.
The Air Force quality of life Strategy identifies seven quality of
life initiatives: compensation and benefits, balanced PERSTEMPO and
OPSTEMPO, health care, housing, retirement, community support, and
educational opportunities. The MILCON program improves quality of life
by renovating or constructing dormitories and community support
facilities. Our three-step dormitory investment strategy includes the
buy-out of all permanent party central latrine dormitories by fiscal
year 1999, building to meet the dorm deficit, and replacing or
converting our worst existing dorms within 10 years (fiscal year 2000-
2009).
Recent emphasis has been placed on housing for unaccompanied
airmen; an area with a large impact on force retention and future
recruiting. With your support, fiscal year 1999 will mark the year in
which we ``buy-out'' our last remaining permanent party central latrine
dormitories. As we reach our goal of eliminating these substandard
facilities we will use the dormitory master plan as a roadmap to
eliminate deficits and replace our ``worst'' dormitories while we
balance additional requests for community support facilities.
This year's program funds eleven enlisted dormitory projects at six
stateside and five foreign installations for a total of $119 million.
In addition to the dormitories, the program funds a Child Development
Center at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, and Dining Facilities at
Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina, and McGuire Air Force Base,
New Jersey for a total of $15 million.
Optimize Use of Public and Private Resources
As the Air Force transitions to a seamless Space and Air Force, we
must free up precious resources for modernization. To do this we are
adopting modern business practices: removing redundancies, using
competition to improve quality and reduce costs, and reducing support
structures to free up resources and focus on core competencies. All the
time we must keep in mind that the purposes of our outsourcing and
privatizing initiatives are designed to preserve ``tooth,'' and
streamline ``tail,'' while supporting modernization.
One example of innovative business practices involves a unique
opportunity to ``use the other guy's money'' in a land and facilities
swap between the Air National Guard and the Phoenix Airport Authority.
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport wanted to expand their
infrastructure onto Air National Guard property and were willing to
build us a new base. Through a mutually beneficial arrangement we will
gain $65 million worth of new facilities, funded and constructed by the
city, while experiencing no impact on operational readiness. That's
smart government.
We have been remiss for the amount of time used to award our first
housing privatization effort; however, we are confident this award will
happen this summer. The good news is that we have learned volumes about
the necessary process and procedures that allowed us to eliminate many
hurdles for future projects. We still believe that we will provide new
homes to our airmen in less time than the standard military
construction route--2 years, not 3. Another improvement includes the
use of recommendations from the Family Housing Master Plan as a
blueprint for guiding future privatization. This will also save more
time and allow us to better program future privatization projects.
Meanwhile, we are embracing a defense reform initiative that places
us primarily in the energy management business and will reduce our role
in the infrastructure business. We are seeking to privatize utility
systems where it makes economic sense and where not required to
maintain a readiness capability. Four pilot studies are underway at
Hill Air Force Base, Utah; Scott Air Force Base, Illinois; Langley Air
Force Base, Virginia; and Edwards Air Force Base, California.
One example of an early success with utility privatization is at
Youngstown Air Reserve Station in Youngstown, Ohio. In an effort to
reduce expenses and satisfy the electrical demand at the station, the
reserves pursued the privatization of the station power system.
Congress approved the effort as a demonstration project to assess the
feasibility and advisability of permitting private entities to install,
operate, and maintain electrical power distribution systems at military
installations. The contract with Ohio Edison Company was awarded in
August 1997. The project replaces an undersized and obsolete electrical
distribution system for $360 thousand less than if the Air Force had
retained ownership of the system.
Overseas MILCON
We must invest in force protection, safety, and quality of life at
our overseas bases. We now have eleven overseas main operating bases:
two in Germany, one in Italy, two in England and one in Turkey. In the
Pacific, we have two in Korea and three in Japan. Given the stability
of our overseas installations, after years of base closures and major
force reductions, we can see that our reduced MILCON investment was not
sufficiently augmented by host nation funding strategies. Consequently,
we are actively pursuing NATO funding, host nation funding, and
payment-in-kind; however, the need for quality of life improvements is
bigger than available burdensharing opportunities can satisfy.
Our 1999 program for our European and Pacific installations
includes $71 million in unclassified MILCON. The program consists of
dormitory projects at Kunsan and Osan Air Bases in Korea, RAF
Lakenheath and Mildenhall in England; and Spangdahlem Air Base in
Germany. We ask for your support for these important quality of life
projects--they represent our most critical requirements for our airmen
stationed overseas at our most stable installations, and buy out our
first commitment to our airmen: central latrine dorms. We must also
have the other projects including a central security control facility
at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey; and squadron operations facilities at
Mildenhall and Spangdehlem.
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 our record shows, we are dedicated to improving our already open
relationships 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 continuing campaign to foster an environmental ethic within the
Air Force culture, both here in the United States and abroad, has
enabled us to sustain operational readiness, be a good neighbor, and
leverage our resources to remain a leader in environmental compliance
and cleanup.
Over the past 2 years, as a result of these cooperative efforts,
the Air Force environmental program received top honors for almost one-
half of the 28 awards areas recognized by the Department of Defense. We
were recognized for overall environmental quality as well as recycling
in non-industrial areas. Additionally, our measure of merit targeting
no enforcement actions is paying dividends. We have reduced our open
enforcement actions from 263 in fiscal year 1992 to 11 in fiscal year
1998.
Our environmental compliance MILCON request for fiscal year 1999
totals $17.1 million for eight, level-1 compliance projects. Our
program primarily focuses on environmental projects for fire training
facilities. Closed due to ground water contamination from existing
operations, these fire training facilities are located at Hurlburt
Field, Florida; Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota; Kirtland Air
Force Base, New Mexico; MacDill Air Force Base, Florida; Maxwell Air
Force Base, Alabama; Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma; and Hector Field,
North Dakota. They are designed to replace traditional jet fuel burning
facilities with a modern standard design providing a more economical
and environmentally safer training method. We also have a project to
upgrade the sanitary sewer lines in support of the Air National Guard
Base at Alpena County Airport in Michigan.
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
subject to a compliance agreement.
Unspecified Minor Construction
We have requested $13.5 million in fiscal year 1999 for unspecified
minor construction funds, which will provide the total Air Force with
its primary means of responding to small, unforeseen facility
requirements that cannot wait for the normal MILCON process. From
fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 1997, a total of $12.7 million was
reprogrammed into the account to fund urgent requirements. The fiscal
year 1993 through fiscal year 1998 accounts are fully obligated or
committed to valid projects.
Planning and Design
Our request for fiscal year 1999 planning and design is $46.6
million. These funds are required to complete design of the fiscal year
2000 construction program and to start design of our fiscal year 2001
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 responsibility to the family
housing program is even more important in this era of major force
reductions and increased OPSTEMPO and PERSTEMPO 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.
Consequently, we have developed--consistent with the corporate
priorities of the Air Force--our housing program to best serve our
families.
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 35 years, and over 61,000 of our current 110,000 housing
units do not measure up to contemporary standards.
Our military family housing program consists of three major
programs: privatization, investment, and operations and maintenance
(O&M). Under the privatization program, we will soon use the
recommendations of the Family Housing Master Plan as a blueprint for
guiding privatization efforts. There are twelve stateside housing
privatization projects being examined; 420 units at Lackland Air Force
Base, Texas, are scheduled for contract award this summer. The $226
million fiscal year 1999 MFH investment program is programmed to
construct 64 new units at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas; replace 784 worn
out units at 12 separate locations; and improve 625 units at 10
locations. Finally, the Housing O&M Program is $790 million. It
supports ``must pay'' requirements such as refuse collection, snow
removal, utilities, and leases. The program also supports the contract
maintenance program to keep houses in good condition for our families.
We continue to use the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization Act
that created the family housing improvement fund for our privatization
efforts. The authorization act permits military family housing
initiatives that enable us to accelerate improvement and replacement of
our family housing inventory. We ask for your continued strong support
for our requested investment level so we have sufficient capital to
ensure an accelerated fix of our inadequate housing.
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, replace obsolete utility and structural systems, provide
additional living space as permitted by law, and at the same time,
accomplish 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 1999 improvement request is $82 million. This
amount revitalizes 625 homes at 10 bases. This includes $36 million for
295 homes in the continental United States, $34 million for 330 homes
overseas, and $12 million for six neighborhood improvement projects.
New Construction
We are requesting $133 million for fiscal year 1999 projects at 12
CONUS bases to replace 784 existing houses, and three housing and
maintenance support facilities. The replacement units will take the
place of existing homes that are no longer economical to maintain.
Operations, Utilities and Maintenance
Our fiscal year 1999 request for family housing operations,
utilities and maintenance is $672 million. These funds are necessary to
operate and maintain the 110,000 homes remaining in the fiscal year
1999 Air Force inventory. Approximately 42 percent of this requested
funding represents the Air Force's obligation as the landlord for items
such as utilities, refuse collection, and other key services. The
remaining 56 percent of the funds are for major maintenance contracts
to fix the deteriorating infrastructure, such as electrical
distribution systems, streets and roofs.
Planning and Design (P&D) and Leasing
We have requested $129 million for P&D and Leasing. This includes
$11 million for P&D of new construction and improvement programs, and
$118 million for leasing 4,175 domestic units and 4,125 foreign houses.
The leasing program supports critical missions in non-traditional
locations, such as foreign sites where family housing is not available,
and for recruiters not located near military installation in the United
States.
Our fiscal year 1999 military family housing budget request
reflects our policy to ensure our families have access to safe,
affordable and quality homes; and mirrors our strategy to modernize on-
base housing by improving our ``worst-first.'' We are committed to
improving retention by providing our Air Force families with homes and
communities that are comparable in design and amenities to private
sector housing. Our ``whole house-whole neighborhood'' concept for
developing a housing community plan for each installation continues to
put our people first by fostering a sense of community and supporting
neighborhood identity. We seek to achieve a ``pride of ownership''
mentality within our family housing community.
base closure accounts
The Air Force Base Realignment and Closure fiscal year 1999 MILCON
request is $34.1 million for 12 projects at four locations based on
BRAC 1995 decisions. These projects include a Communications Training
Complex at Stewart International Airport, New York; three projects at
Hill Air Force Base, Utah, to include alterations of a Product
Management/Composites Facility, GTE Test Cell and F-117 Radar Facility;
three projects at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, due to the
realignment of Kelly Air Force Base, Texas; and five closure-related
projects at Lackland Air Force Base due to the realignment of Kelly Air
Force Base, Texas.
The Air Force requirements included in the Department of Defense
fiscal year 1999 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 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
neither disrupts our operational requirements nor adversely affects
quality of life issues. We appreciate the support of this committee in
helping us meet 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 1999 Air Force Military Construction submission
reflects the corporate priorities supporting the total Air Force vision
to become the best Air and Space Force while working to maintain our
constantly deteriorating plant. Our installations constitute a crucial
factor in Air Force readiness. We rely on our bases to serve as our
launch platforms as well as places for people to work to effectively
project United States air and space power. This budget submission
reflects our commitment to maintain the quality of Air Force
installations and to help ensure that the United States Air Force
remains the world's most respected Air and Space Force.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Coleman, this
is the last time you are going to appear before this committee.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. And I did not bring a cake or anything.
Mr. Coleman. We can come back----
south pole trip
Senator Burns. No gold watches or anything like that. I say
that with a little touch of sadness. I appreciate us working
together on many projects.
General Weaver, let me congratulate you right off the top.
This last January we went to the South Pole, and I think you
had a lot to do with the New York Air Guard and that airlift
organization up there. They were very kind to us, I will tell
you, and I imagine you probably made a couple of those trips
down there----
General Weaver. Yes, sir; I have.
Senator Burns. I will tell you, if you ever go to the South
Pole you have to really want to go. That is a backbreaker, and
I do not know where they get thermostats to heat a C-130. I
thought I picked myself out a little web seat that was pretty
good and then I was wondering how come I got cold: I was
sitting right next to a case that says: ``Keep frozen at minus
80 degrees Centigrade.'' So my feet almost did not make it.
We had a great trip down there, but my great support person
here did not make that leg of the trip. She made it to New
Zealand, but she did not make it out of Christchurch.
I just wanted to say congratulations. I thought a very
professional crew, very professional, and made our trip down
there very, very enjoyable.
General Weaver. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Burns. Everything was going well until those
penguins come hopping out of that water with an old killer
whale right behind them. And I was about from here to you to
the edge of that ice, and I think there was several folks that
had a camcorder with them and picked up some expletives that
are used in stockyards and the U.S. Marine Corps.
General Weaver. Trip of a lifetime.
Senator Burns. Trip of a lifetime, it really was.
Senator Murray, do you have a statement for the Air Force
that you might want to make at this time?
Senator Murray. Actually, no.
Senator Burns. Do you not want to go to the South Pole?
Senator Murray. Well, I do not know how you went to the
South Pole not thinking you were going to be cold.
Senator Burns. No, no; it is just not that. It is just they
have got to get some thermostats in the back end of the C-
130's. It is really kind of like riding with the cattle.
General Weaver. That is correct.
Senator Burns. I will tell you, they make it as comfortable
as it possibly can be made under the circumstances, and we
realize that. But you have got on all the clothes you own, and
then they turn up the heat and you take them all off, and you
wear yourself out.
Senator Murray. And we have photos?
housing program
Senator Burns. Yes; we have got photos, we sure do.
Mr. Secretary, we start these hearings early so you can get
out and go back to work. We do not want to keep a good man from
his work, you know.
But implications right now, putting everything in the
priorities; where are we with our housing? Give me an overall
status report and progress this past year, and where do you
think we should be looking toward in the next couple of years?
Mr. Coleman. You gave me a carte blanche, did you not?
Senator Burns. Just give you a credit card and go?
Mr. Coleman. Well, sir, I feel that we are doing well in
our housing program to reduce the housing stock that we deem to
be unfit for our troops. We have engaged in a privatization
effort that is going to complement our housing, not supplant
our military family housing program. It is going to supplement
what we have. We are only going to do it where it makes sense,
where it makes economical sense and practical sense.
We have about 12 locations that we are looking at now that
are in various degrees of completeness, one down at Randolph
Air Force Base--I mean, Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio,
that we are putting on the street. It is on the street. We are
waiting for project award in July. That is going to be about
420 units.
We have got one going into Robins Air Force Base where we
are using one of the authorities given to us where we are going
to give the developer some land across from the main base which
is now used for base housing. We will give him that land and he
can develop it.
So we are methodically working on. I will have General
Lupia give some more details on that after I take care of this
carte blanche that you have given me as to how we are with our
Milcon.
Senator Burns. Do we have enough money?
Mr. Coleman. No, sir; we do not have enough money to do all
that we want to do with regard to quality of life, military
construction, O&M, and military housing. We are working within
a constrained budget. We are doing the best that we can to take
care of force modernization and the modernization of our
aircraft.
I wish there was more. We are buying out all of our gang
latrines this year and making sure that our troops do not have
anything but the absolute best that our money can buy. We are
doing the best that we can to prepare the Air Force for the
next millennium. We are a much reduced force from when I was in
uniform, a much reduced force from when I commenced this job 4
years ago. We have steadily decreased our manpower. We have got
22 bases closed, 17 realigned under BRAC.
We need BRAC. I hope you will support that. I hope this
committee will support that.
In essence, sir, within our constrained $60-some billion
budget, we are doing the very best for the troops that we can,
knowing that our troops are deployed, as I said in my opening
statement, quite a bit more than they ever have been deployed
before for the number of troops that we have taking care of our
work overseas.
Gene, if you want to add into that.
dormitories
Senator Burns. General Lupia.
General Lupia. I would just like to say in terms of housing
we typically talk about it in two ways. First, the housing--as
you know, the Air Force has made quite a commitment to this. In
this program, in 1999 they have $120 million for enlisted
dormitories out of a $500 million program, which was a very
tough decision for the Air Force to make.
But what that does allow us to do is buy out the last of
our central permanent party latrine dormitories. Three years
ago we started out with 173 buildings where airmen still lived
with central latrines. At the end of this military construction
cycle, if you approve everything that we have brought to you,
we will not have a permanent party dormitory left in the Air
Force with central latrines.
Next, we begin to buy out our deficit. We need 12,000 rooms
in order for every unaccompanied airman in the Air Force to
have a private room, that is every airman E-1 to E-4, which is
our program. We begin to buy some of those this year and will
continue in next year and the following years to do that. So by
2009 every airman, E-1 to E-4, in the Air Force will live in a
private room on base.
Then finally, at the end of our program, we will begin to
convert those two plus two dormitories that have worn-out to
one plus one dormitories.
family housing
On the family housing side, we still have 61,000 houses
that really need major renovation or work. We cannot get there
with our budget. We appreciate all the help that Congress has
given us in the past and we hope that you will find it in your
heart to still help some Air Force families.
Senator Burns. Your demolition program is coming along as
far as some of those old living quarters?
General Lupia. Yes, sir; the old Wherry's and actually even
some before the Wherry housing that we are tearing down, as a
matter of fact. But our program has gone very well.
So we still have a plan to put together for housing. We
published a dormitory master plan last year, and this year we
will publish a family housing master plan. In that we will go
through every base in the Air Force and make decisions as to
what base we can use privatization at, what base we need to use
military construction at, what base we can solve our problems
with O&M money, and then proceed down that road so that every
dollar in the Air Force that we spend on either dormitory or on
family housing is spent on the very worst ones we have. We fix
those up first and work our way up to getting to those that are
in better shape later.
Senator Burns. General Clem, $10.5 million for the
Reserves. That is not very much money.
General Clem. Not a good year for us, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. You have got to be a better scrapper here.
General Clem. I guess so. I guess I could dodge that and
say this is my first month on the job, but that probably would
not be fair, either.
As you know, sir, we participate fully in the Air Force's
Milcon development prioritization process. We have a seat at
the table all the way through the process. Our projects were
right there to be considered along with everybody else's. I
think it is fair to say that, within an overall constrained
budget this year, the Air Force has had a number of priorities
that, frankly, were higher than ours.
Our No. 1 project, the C-130H facility at Maxwell in
Alabama, was funded. It appears at this point in the process
for 2000, that we are going to do better next year. But I want
to emphasize that we are part of the process and we stood up
there with everybody else and, for one reason or another, just
did not quite make it through this year.
Senator Burns. General Weaver.
General Weaver. Sir.
Senator Burns. Air Guard.
General Weaver. I think, along with what General Clem is
saying, is what goes behind the scenes in the seamless Air
Force. As you have mentioned on many occasions, the Air Force
really truly sets the standards for Guard and Reserve as the
total force with its active duty counterpart.
Having sat through the boards and the councils' meetings
behind the scenes in looking at all of the budgetary priorities
and the constraints that we have to operate under, we get a
voice. We get a very strong voice, and our voices are heard,
thanks to Mr. Coleman, General Lupia, Mr. Dishner, who have
really argued strong for us in these council meetings.
But I think Mr. Coleman put it quite well: As compared to
Air Combat Command, we have done quite well in comparison for
Milcon. Can we live with it? Yes; we can. But I will also
hasten to say that we appreciate what you have been able to do
and your committee in the past in helping us out with add-ons.
When I heard you use the term ``pork'' earlier on--and I
mentioned this last year--it really, it is upsetting when I
hear that, because I can point to every dollar that you have
been able to muster for the Guard and Reserve and the Air
Force, and it has led to our combat capability, which is the
most combat capable force that we have got in the Department of
Defense. That is as a direct result of what you have been able
to put in our pockets in performing our military construction
requirements and our total force.
So it is a tough year. I think things will be still a
little tougher the next couple of years. I am hoping that we
will be able to look at our backlog in RPM and Milcon and get
that turned around. But it is comforting to know that we are
part of a total force and this total force truly stands up and
argues for our requirements in the Guard and Reserve, with our
great leadership.
Senator Burns. Senator Murray.
reserve component funding
Senator Murray. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just follow up on that, because I cannot help but
notice that the funding request for the Air National Guard,
despite the high degree of visibility it got last year and the
fact that the Congress actually had to double the funding for
it, is down to one-half of last year's exorbitantly low
request. I really want to know whether we can realistically
expect the Air National Guard to even function at $35 million,
Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Coleman. Yes, ma'am. I think--well, I know that they
can. It is constrained. It is not what they want. It is within
the corporate process, as we discussed.
Two years ago General Fogleman and myself stated to the
Congress that we were using Milcon money as a bill payer and we
are going to take 1998 and 1999 and use a lot of the money for
modernization, and that we committed to you to start ramping up
in 2000. The paucity of that budget reflects what we said 2
years ago. We needed to take more money and use for other
things that were more demanding, and starting in 2000, which
will be the next budget submitted to the Congress, we will ramp
up both the Guard and the Reserve to a degree that it deserves.
Senator Murray. General Weaver?
General Weaver. I agree with Mr. Coleman. Is it what we
like, the $35 million? No; we would have appreciated a lot
more. But again, the process, when we looked at all the
budgetary constraints. And we in the Guard and Reserve also
look at the family housing, the dormitory requirements of our
airmen and our families, and our quality of life in the Guard
and Reserve are a little bit different. It is the facility
which we are working in, and we still have some facilities out
there with two-pronged electrical outlets, quonset huts. You
have done a great job in helping us get a lot of that turned
around.
But when you look at the total picture--and again,
corporately our Air Force, our modernization is an extremely
important part of it. Some bills have been paid out of the
Milcon. If you look at the entire picture, yes, we can handle
$35 million. If it continues in the way future, I will have
some serious concerns, as will the Air Force as well. But we
have got a commitment from our Air Force leadership that this
will get turned around.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
c-17 deployment to mc Chord AFB
Mr. Secretary, you requested $52 million for various
aspects of the C-17 deployment to McChord Air Force Base in
Washington. Can you give us a status of that program?
Mr. Coleman. Gene, can you handle that?
General Lupia. Yes, sir; I sure can.
We are very pleased that we are able to put the C-17 into
McChord. As you know, Charleston was our first base for the C-
17, McChord second. This year we really have the majority, a
big slug of the facilities for McChord. We formed a senior
executive review group that I sit on with the Army Corps of
Engineers and the Major Command Engineer. We review our
progress.
We are ahead of all the time schedules. We are within
budget on each of the projects that we have taken on so far.
And I think, with the approval of the 1999 program, we will
have that weapon system in there the way it should be.
We are fortunate enough that at McChord we are putting the
facilities in before we put the airplanes in. At Charleston we
got the airplanes there a little bit early, before the
facilities, and we scrambled. But I think at McChord we are
going to be ahead of the airplanes and the program is right on
schedule.
Senator Murray. How many additional people will you need at
McChord on the C-17?
General Lupia. I cannot answer that one. I do not know what
the manpower number is.
Mr. Coleman. We can get that for you.
Senator Murray. Yes; if you could get that for me.
[The information follows:]
C-17 into McChord AFB
Based on the current program, the Air Force anticipates there will
be an increase of approximately 200 personnel at McChord Air Force Base
by the time the C-17 is fully fielded.
Senator Murray. Are the housing and child care facilities
adequate for the additional people that we have coming?
Mr. Coleman. I will get back to you on that, but we would
not have put it there if it had not been adequate. But I will
get a report to you.
[The information follows:]
McChord AFB Housing and Child Care
The Current housing and child care facilities capacity is
considered adequate for the additional people.
Senator Murray. OK, because I do see in your request here
an item for $20 million for clinic and warehouse replacement.
Mr. Coleman. Replacement, yes.
Senator Murray. Right. Can you tell me exactly what that is
and what the capacity for that clinic is?
Mr. Coleman. I can get that for you also.
[The information follows:]
McChord AFB Clinic and Warehouse Replacement
The clinic and warehouse replacement project at McChord AFB will
consolidate all medical care and logistics storage for the 62nd Medical
Group. The new facility will provide for modern functionalities and
equipment with efficiencies and flexibility to accommodate 21st Century
primary care medicine. The old, inefficient facilities currently
occupied by the 62nd Medical Group will be vacated.
The project is included in the DOD's fiscal year 1999 Medical
Military Construction Program for $20 million. It is sized for a 7,326
gross square meter (GSM) Clinic building; 1,348 GSM War Reserve
Material Warehouse, and a 71 GSM Ambulance Shelter. The new facility
will provide health care to an estimated 20,220 enrolled beneficiaries
and will accommodate an estimated 112,000 patient visits annually.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
retention programs
Senator Burns. One thing sort of sticks in the back of my
mind, and you could probably help me out with this and help
direct me a little bit. We still hear, and it is fairly
noticeable, in the manpower, Mr. Secretary, we are losing
skilled people in the U.S. Air Force. In fact, we are losing
them as fast as we are recruiting them and training them. In
some areas, I think maybe in the pilot area, we may be falling
behind a little bit. Even though we have had very lucrative
reenlistment offers made, we continue to lose people.
That concerns me, and I am wondering in the assessment of
that what us in Congress who would like to help the military in
that retention--why are we losing them? Are we losing them to
more lucrative opportunities in the private sector, or is it
something that we are doing in the military that is not making
us competitive with the private sector?
Mr. Coleman. Well, the most obvious has been the OPTEMPO
that the troops have had to endure. We have got that down. We
are cutting it back even more. We are looking at ways of
complying with the needs of Southwest Asia [SWA] and Southeast
Asia [SEA]. But the air staff is looking at a number of things
to decrease the deployments to execute the air expeditionary
force concept, to take care of the Air Force's needs overseas,
so the troops do not have to constantly be deployed in short
spurts like the 45-day deployment or the 120-day deployment.
We wish that we could PCS some people to SWA, but that is a
foreign policy issue that we have no control over. It would
greatly diminish the time and the strain on the young troops.
You have increased the aircraft incentive pay, aviation
incentive pay. It is a number of things, not one of them which
you can put your finger on, in my personal estimation, that
would save the pilots. There is an attractiveness principle
with the airlines no matter what is going on in SWA or SEA, nor
no matter what is the compensation package that a young troop
would get.
That is why the OPSTEMPO to me in my travels over the last
4 years and having responsibility for personnel issues, the
young troops have said to me: I cannot stand this OPS and
PERSTEMPO.
We have tried everything that we can to take care of the
needs of the family back home--child development centers,
making sure that the housing is A-OK and the family support
centers are A-OK. We are doing the best job that we can with
the funds that we have, and I think the Chief of Staff and the
rest of the Air Staff are taking it upon themselves to devise
means by which we do not have to deploy these troops as much as
we have in the past.
Senator Burns. Well with the downsizing in the military
force structure, we assumed that we would be meaner and leaner,
but we would also be more mobile--the ability to react and move
within a short period of time. So I am just concerned about
losing our skilled people, knowing that there will always be
competition for skilled people in our military. And as
technology--you know, we are talking to a different soldier and
airman and marine. We just do not lock and load and let it off
any more. It takes high skills and a very, very adaptable kind
of an individual to do what we have to do in our military
nowadays.
There will be other questions come up, gentlemen. That is
all the questions that I have. We have gone over your list. We
are going to try very hard in this committee to support what
you think is important.
base realignment and closure
On another round of BRAC, Mr. Secretary, after talking to
the Navy and seeing where they are as a result of the first
three rounds, I am a little reluctant to support another round
of BRAC until we get caught up. But my decision is not carved
in stone, either. But if we can work through this process and
help you maybe close some installations or realign some
installations, why, we sure want to work with you in achieving
that, because that is all part of it.
In other words, are we wasting money in areas that we could
be dealing with our attrition problem, and also where we want
to go as far as an integrated, seamless force.
Mr. Coleman. Sir, I would hope that you would not wait. We
would avail ourselves--the Chief, the Acting Secretary, myself,
Mr. Dishner, General Lupia. Anybody that you wish to discuss
the facilities needs of the Air Force in the next millennium, I
would be more than happy in my remaining days as an Assistant
Secretary to help you facilitate that, as well as the rest of
the Members of the Senate.
We need BRAC. We need BRAC now. We have saved money. We
have crossed the line. We have closed 22 bases. Some are in the
hands of the communities totally, like England Air Force Base
in Louisiana, Grissom, Gentile. We have successes that folks
around the United States point to as solid, positive return
investments to the communities on the books.
We will be constantly appearing before you, not me, but
somebody will be here talking about a very constrained budget
taking care of 300,000-some with 160,000-some civilians and
100,000-some in the Reserve components. We need your help to
help us get to the point where $60-some billion can really buy
something. We need more than $60-some billion, but within that
$60-some billion that you give us we are doing the absolute
best that I think that we could do to provide all of the things
that are necessary.
As my parting shot, sir--I will appear before a personnel
hearing on the 18th--this U.S. military of which I have been a
part in uniform and now as a senior official, civilian
official, they need a pay raise, they need more money for
housing, they need more money for Milcon, they need more money
for quality of life.
Otherwise, we are going to be here talking and talking and
talking year after year after year. And you have got the purse
strings and you can pull them. I have been up here 4 years
trying to juggle a lot of things for a lot of people, and I
have seen those people up close and personal like you have.
They are the greatest that we have, and we have got to take
care of them. The only way we can take care of them is to pay
them and to give them what they need to execute their mission.
Senator Burns. Well, I agree with that. I think, along with
Senator Murray, we have changed the emphasis of Milcon to
quality of life considerably. But I am also a facilities-based
man and I get more upset than anything else when the proposed
budget short changes Guard requirements, and forces us to add
back that funding because each of our States have Guard units,
including Montana. We are very proud of our F-16's in Great
Falls, even though they have had a change in mission. But they
still continue to be a very good and viable force, and we want
to make sure of their facilities base, but we also want the
quality of life.
Additional committee questions
So we have changed that emphasis, and Senator Murray has
had as much to do about that as anybody, I will tell you that,
because she has been very, very much aware of the families on
our bases. And I thank her for that.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. We will have some questions for the Air
Force, and if you will reply to the individual Senators and to
the committee I would appreciate that.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Mr. Coleman by Senator Burns
funding levels
Question. What are the long-term implications of a steady decline
of MILCON funding to the Air Force installations and infrastructure?
Answer. The steady decline of Air Force MILCON funding is a
reflection of the difficulty facing the Air Force leadership in
maintaining a balance between modernization, readiness, infrastructure,
and quality of life. In the short term, requirements far exceed
funding. Fiscal year 1999 MILCON requirements total $1.4B, but the
budget barely funds one-third of this requirement. Although funding is
projected to increase to $600M in fiscal year 2000, the Air Force has
$2.2B in requirements. The cumulative effect of deferring valid MILCON
requirements to future years is a backlog which we cannot address at
current funding levels. The Air Force is funding the most urgent MILCON
needs first--facilities having the potential to significantly impact
the mission are being funded. However, without increased funding we
will start to see mission capability degraded due to insufficient
maintenance and repair or capital improvement.
Question. What is your backlog of real property maintenance
requirements?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 Total Force Backlog of Maintenance and
Repair (BMAR) is approximately $4.7B.
Question. What percentage of the plant replacement cost does the
Air Force spend each year on maintaining your facilities? At that rate,
what is the average replacement cycle in terms of years?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, the Air Force is spending one percent
of Plant Replacement Value, excluding MILCON investments. At this rate,
there is no re-capitalization of facilities, except through MILCON.
family housing privatization
Question. Explain to us why the Air Force has taken a go slow,
cautious approach to Family Housing Privatization?
Answer. The Air Force is taking a measured approach to family
housing privatization which will allow us to build solely on successes.
Privatization is a new and an entirely different approach to
acquisition requiring us to build a level of expertise over time. With
increased experience afforded by time, we expect to become more
familiar and comfortable with authority application and may expand our
initiatives as appropriate. Even with our moderate approach to housing
privatization, the Air Force is pursuing 12 privatization initiatives
through fiscal year 2000. We will continue to pursue privatization when
the economics of ventures prove them feasible.
Question. What challenges are out there with respect to this
program?
Answer. A major obstacle to implementing our program is the lack of
actual project execution experience. We are close to completing our
first solicitation under the new authorities and have already used
lessons learned to improve our project development process. In spite of
these challenges, the Air Force has 12 family housing privatization
ventures under development. We are meeting these challenges head-on and
working hard to overcome any obstacle to our success. As we move more
deals toward award, we are developing baseline documents (Requests For
Proposals, ground leases, mortgage documents) that can be reused in
subsequent deals.
Question. Does the Air Force plan to give up land in exchange for
some of these housing deals?
Answer. The Air Force is considering structuring ventures that may
involve leveraging the value of land in exchange for quality housing.
If conveyance of land is central to the economics of a successful deal
and the land is or can be detached from the operational portion of the
installation, then the approach will be pursued. For example,
government land (300 acres) is being offered as part of our Robins AFB
deal.
demolition program
Question. Explain your Demolition Program and provide us an
estimate of how much money you are saving as a result?
Answer. The Air Force's goal is to reduce physical plant inventory
and associated Operation and Maintenance costs as one means to ``right
size'' Air Force installations. The Air Force has sourced approximately
$15M in fiscal year 1999 out of the current $195M (fiscal year 1999-
2003) requirement. The estimated one time savings (generated the year
after demolition) from this $15M investment is approximately $1M.
Thereafter, benefits gained are through cost avoidances.
Question. Is this Program adequately funded in fiscal year 1999?
What is your real requirement? Could you use more money if it were made
available?
Answer. The Air Force has sourced approximately $15M out of the
current $195M identified demolition requirement. The Air Force could
use an additional $140M of the remaining $180M requirement to demolish
facilities in fiscal year 1999.
Question. It would seem that this Program pays for itself. Why
hasn't the Air force provided the funds necessary to do this program in
order to achieve those savings?
Answer. Given overall budgetary constraints, we feel the current
Air Force demolition program is appropriate. There is a great need to
address other modernization, quality of life, and infrastructure needs
with the funds allotted the Air Force.
______
Questions Submitted to Mr. Coleman by Senator Stevens
elmendorf housing privatization
Question. I understand that Elmendorf AFB is being considered as a
candidate for family housing privatization. What is the time line for
this initiative in Alaska?
Answer. The privatization concept was approved by the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Industrial Affairs and Installations). The
Industry Forum which precedes the development of the request for
proposal was held 16 and 17 April 1998 on Elmendorf AFB. We are
projecting award of the project by June 1999.
Question. If the Air Force decides not to proceed with this plan,
will the traditional MILCON go forward for Elmendorf?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If this privatization concept proceeds, will the DFAR
provision requiring local hire in Alaskan construction contracts, be
included in the contract?
Answer. The DFARS provision requiring local hire in Alaskan
construction contracts (DFARS 252.222-7000, entitled Restrictions on
Employment of Personnel) is only included in contracts subject to the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The Elmendorf Housing
Privatization agreement will not be subject to the FAR as it will be
set forth in a land lease and operating agreement and structured as an
investment transaction, rather than as a FAR transaction. As a matter
of practice, we have been incorporating many FAR clauses into the
structure of our privatization agreements, and we intend to incorporate
a local hire provision in the forthcoming Elmendorf agreement.
______
Questions Submitted to General Weaver by Senator Burns
budget request
Question. How does this year's budget request for the Air National
Guard compared to previous years? Does it meet all of our requirements?
Answer. The Air National Guard's (ANG) fiscal year 1999 budget
request is the smallest in 19 years. Although it is 42 percent less
than the fiscal year 1998 budget request, it does represent the ANG's
most important military construction (MILCON) requirements. Higher
Department of Defense and Air Force budget priorities continue to
prevent MILCON requirements from being fully funded. While the ANG's
most critical facility needs are being met within the constrained
budget request, many new mission and current mission MILCON
requirements are having to be deferred to later years.
backlog
Question. What is your backlog for real property?
Answer. The Air National Guard's (ANG) backlog of real property
maintenance (RPM) at the end of fiscal year 1997 was $564 million. RPM
funding for the ANG in fiscal year 1999 continues to be constrained and
is at the lowest level in 18 years. The limited RPM funding will not
keep pace or arrest the growth of the backlog.
______
Questions Submitted to Brigadier General Clem by Senator Burns
budget request
Question. It appears that the Air Force Reserve has a very lean
budget request for military construction in fiscal year 1999--only
$10.5 million.
Answer. Yes. The Air Force Reserve's fiscal year 1999 budget
request is its leanest ever. It is 28 percent less than our previous
low, the fiscal year 1998 request of $14.5 million.
backlog
Question. What is your backlog on MILCON and real property
maintenance requirements?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve's MILCON backlog consists of 107
projects at $485.74 million, which includes our sole $5.20M project in
the fiscal year 1999 budget request. The Air Force Reserve's end-of-
year real property maintenance backlog for fiscal year 1999, as
reported in the fiscal year 1999 budget request, is $170.74 million.
subcommittee recess
Senator Burns. Your full statements shall be made a part of
the record. Thank you for coming this morning and have a nice
day, and these hearings are closed.
[Whereupon, at 10:24 a.m., Tuesday, March 10, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:11 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. PIRIE, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY
(INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
OPENING STATEMENT OF CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. I call this committee to order. I am sorry,
I want to apologize, I was meeting with your boss over at the
Pentagon. I do not know whether it is harder to get out or to
get in that place. But, nonetheless, I want to apologize.
I did not want to set this hearing back again, because I
think it is very important to all of us who are finding ways
now to try to stretch the budget, cover a lot of things that we
should be doing in the military, and deal with the Base
Realignment and Closure Commission [BRAC], the base closures
and the costs of environmental cleanup, to move those bases
into the different hands. We are in a mode now--and I do not
have my prepared statement, I am going to forego that, because
we are going to start with the witnesses--but a recent trip to
the Middle East and, of course, to Bosnia and those areas
taught us one thing that I think was very obvious--that we are
stretched very thin for money. We may be doing some things at
the expense of modernization and things that we should be
doing--quality of life, those things that lift morale in our
troops, and expenditures in areas where sometimes some of those
expenditures, we hope, could be avoided.
So, with that, I want to welcome Mr. Pirie, Mr. Johnson,
and Mr. Dishner this morning. I will say that you can
consolidate your statement. I have read all three statements,
by the way, and have some questions with regard to those. This
is the opening session that will deal with environmental
cleanup of our bases, and I hope we can develop a dialog, where
we can maybe help you and you can help us.
And now I want to turn to my ranking member, Senator
Murray, who also has some concerns about this. And we welcome
you here this morning.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Pirie, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Dishner for being here today.
I will just submit my opening statement for the record and
allow the witnesses to go ahead and testify.
prepared statement
I appreciate your interest and work on this hearing and
moving forward. I will not be able to stay long; I do have a
conflict, but I will submit my questions for the record, Mr.
Chairman, if that would be all right.
Senator Burns. That will be fine.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Murray
Secretary Pirie, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Dishner, I wish to join my
chairman in extending you a warm welcome this morning.
DOD has come a long way this last decade in creating a
comprehensive and result-producing environmental program. It has been a
work in progress, with DOD and all the services fine-tuning and
expanding upon both successes and failures to find the most fiscally
responsible and acceptable solutions to DOD's environmental
responsibilities.
Environmental restoration is relatively new ground to most of the
Government, beginning in earnest only about twenty years ago. With
regulations and standards continually changing, it is pleasing to see
the services so amenable to constructive criticism and positive change.
In fact, over the last three years the services have moved from
studying restoration projects to actual clean-up and restoration.
Furthermore, the services have taken to heart the concerns of the
community in developing a system of priorities and joint partnerships.
We are moving in a positive direction in which funding is stabilizing,
pollution prevention initiatives are moving to the forefront, and
complete installation environmental restoration is actually a goal in
our near-term sights.
There are still matters that need to be ironed out, including
oversight of all services' environmental management systems, the cost-
effectiveness of partnering contracts, and so on.
I look forward to hearing your candid views on these and many other
issues.
prepared statements of senators faircloth and craig
Senator Burns. I thank you for that. I also have statements
from Senators Faircloth and Craig that I would like to put in
the record.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Faircloth
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing. With Secretary
Cohen's request for two more BRAC rounds and what appears to be a
politicization of BRAC decisions from previous rounds, it is very
important that we have a clear picture of whether or not we are on the
right track.
I have never been convinced by the Defense Department's mantra that
we must keep closing bases because we need that money for force
modernization. As soon as a decision is made to close bases, the
manpower and operational savings are not available for force
modernization, but they are needed for more construction and work at
the bases being closed. All the BRAC ``savings'' are in the form of
``projections.''
I look forward to getting a better understanding of whether the
cost, typically, of returning a base to a local community is as low as
possible to American taxpayers, and, if lower cost approaches had been
considered at bases, why were they not the chosen way to proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Craig
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing related
to Department of Defense environmental clean up.
I realize there are tremendous budgetary implications of the
Department of Defenses' environmental liabilities. As you know, the
federal government's responsibility for the costs of cleaning up
environmental contamination has received much attention here on Capitol
Hill and throughout the country.
It is paramount that we have reliable and accurate information
regarding the federal government's liability for cleanup cost and
natural resource damages to allow us to carry out our appropriations
functions. Unfortunately, it is often difficult, and even frustrating
to obtain accurate estimates of the Natural Resource Damages at defense
facilities. Private party experience at major sites are often similar
to defense sites, in that damage claims are often two to three times
the clean up cost.
The estimates of the federal government's liability for cleanup
costs alone are enormous. The reality of those costs may prove to be
much, much larger. If costs continue to be much higher than initial
estimates, the DOD's liability alone could jeopardize our federal
budget.
I realize this is a very important issue, and have questions that I
would like to submit for the record. I am also particularly interested
to hear the witnesses' testimony about not only current cost, but where
we will be in future.
I thank the witnesses in advance for their testimony, and look
forward to hearing about their reports and recommendations for policy
options in the future.
statement of robert b. pirie, Jr.
Senator Burns. Mr. Pirie, we will open up with you this
morning. And if you want to consolidate your statement, we will
make your full statement a part of the record this morning.
Thank you for coming and thank you for being so patient.
Mr. Pirie. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to be
here. I will just take a few brief points out of my statement,
if I may.
First, with respect to cleanup as a percentage of overall
BRAC funding. For the Navy, through the end of fiscal year
1997, cleanup has been about 19 percent of BRAC spending to
date. That is, about $1.4 billion out of $7.5 billion that the
Navy has expended on BRAC to date.
For fiscal year 1999, we expect environmental costs will be
about 45 percent of the total required. And as we go forward,
the proportion of total BRAC account spent on cleanup will
rise, because everything else will be done.
After 2001, there will be no more BRAC funding, and
residual cleanup is planned to be done with funds from the
environmental restoration account, which is what we use to
clean up non-BRAC bases. Alternatively, Congress could extend
the BRAC account in anticipation of further rounds of closures,
as the administration has requested.
Concerning the obligation to do the cleanups, we are
absolutely obligated to clean up contamination at all existing
Navy sites. At BRAC sites, we must accelerate our cleanup
schedule to support community reuse plans. It is not certain
whether this acceleration makes the cleanups more expensive or
not. Our experience so far is that we have been successful in
reducing project costs at most locations.
Stable funding is important. Each BRAC base has a property
disposal strategy. The disposal strategy is based on the reuse
plans of affected communities. Cleanup is a key component of
the disposal strategy. Generally, priority in cleanup schedules
and funding goes to those communities that are farthest along
in their reuse plans. If we have to juggle funding and change
schedules, it affects our credibility with the communities and
our ability to convey the property.
In the worst case, we could see a rush to get court or
regulatory orders to force us to particular schedules. This
would tie up funding and make execution much more difficult.
Another reason for stability is that turbulence in project
funding and management negatively affects the progress of the
cleanups.
Cleanup is important to support reuse, job replacement and
prompt conveyance of the property. To do otherwise is generally
to leave an ugly eyesore as a reminder to the community that it
once had a base and the associated economic activity. This is
not the way we want to treat people of the community or our
employees, who have loyally supported us for many years.
prepared statement
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the right thing to do is to clean
up these properties promptly, get them off our books, so that
the communities can begin with reuse and we can avoid prolonged
caretaker costs.
Thank you, sir.
[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. It is a pleasure to be here again. I last appeared before
this Committee on 10 March 1998 to discuss the Department of the Navy
shore infrastructure, military construction, family housing, and Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) programs for fiscal year 1999. I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you in more detail the
environmental component of our BRAC program.
Let me begin by first putting our BRAC environmental efforts in
context with our overall BRAC program.
brac implementation perspective
We are implementing four rounds of base realignment and 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.
These closures and realignments include major Navy and Marine Corps
installations in Philadelphia, PA; Charleston, SC; Orlando and
Jacksonville, FL; Seattle, WA; San Francisco, Long Beach, San Diego,
and Orange County, CA; Honolulu, HI, as well as other bases in Rhode
Island, Alaska, and Guam.
Implementation Strategy
Our BRAC implementation strategy has been to first quickly reach
realignment or operational closure, then to cleanup and dispose of the
property in support of the conversion and redevelopment efforts of
local communities. Operational closure is when 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.
This strategy accelerates BRAC savings because it quickly reduces
or eliminates costs associated with operating and maintaining the
bases, such as costs for utilities, fire and police protection, and
maintaining the buildings, grounds, utility lines, streets, roads,
piers, wharves, runways, warehouses, and homes.
In practical terms, this has meant giving top priority to funding
military construction projects at receiving sites, then budgeting for
the Operations and Maintenance costs to move personnel and equipment
and pay separation benefits associated with reductions in force.
In terms of overall BRAC implementation costs, BRAC environmental
costs have been proportionally much smaller during these early years.
In addition to environmental cleanup, there are environmental planning
and environmental compliance costs that directly support closure or
realignment. Much of the initial BRAC environmental cleanup costs are
to perform base wide assessments, to characterize the nature and extent
of contamination, and to consider remediation alternatives. These costs
are typically a small fraction of the cost to perform any subsequent
cleanup.
BRAC environmental planning supports functions such as National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses. These analyses allow us to
weigh and evaluate competing alternatives, e.g., BRAC directed
realignments of equipment and personnel within the context permitted by
the BRAC legislation; and reuse or redevelopment of BRAC property.
BRAC environmental compliance funds are used to remove or close
underground storage tanks; close active, permitted hazardous waste
storage facilities; and perform asbestos, lead based paint, and PCB
assessments and removals where necessary. (Environmental compliance
funds for normal operations at the base prior to closure are funded
from Operations and Maintenance, Navy and Operations and Maintenance,
Marine Corps appropriations, not BRAC funds).
As the following table displays, our overall BRAC budget peaked at
$2.5 billion in fiscal year 1996, and continues to decline because most
BRAC construction is now complete or underway. Similarly, most of the
realignments (which require BRAC O&M funds) will be completed by next
year. In contrast, BRAC environmental costs have been proportionally
low, and under current estimates, peak in fiscal year 2000 at about
$400 million. As BRAC construction and relocation needs have been
completed, BRAC environmental cleanup is becoming the predominant
portion of our BRAC budget.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMILCON.001
Realignment and Closure Status
As of the end of February 1998, we have completed the realignment
or operational closure of 84 percent (150 out of 178) bases. This year
and next will see the majority of the remaining realignments and
operational closures occur, as we plan to complete actions at 12 bases
in fiscal year 1998 and 11 in fiscal year 1999. Four more are scheduled
in fiscal year 2000 and one in fiscal year 2001.
BRAC Costs and Savings
We have closed or realigned bases to help make the Department of
the Navy's shore infrastructure more proportional to its force
structure and to provide resources to recapitalize our weapons systems
and platforms.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMILCON.002
These savings are substantial. You may recall the above chart from
my testimony last month. It shows that we are approaching the crossover
point where the cumulative savings will exceed the cumulative costs. At
the end of this fiscal year, we expect net savings (cumulative savings
minus cumulative costs) to be +$1.4 billion.
By the end of fiscal year 2001, when all four rounds of BRAC will
be complete, we project that the DON will have spent $10.0 billion and
saved $15.7 billion, for a net savings of $5.7 billion. Equally
important, beginning in fiscal year 2002, we will save an additional
$2.6 billion each year because we will no longer operate and maintain
those bases.
brac property disposal
BRAC Cleanup in Support of Property Disposal
As we approach the end of the realignment and closure process, we
are increasingly turning our attention to the next and more challenging
step: finishing environmental cleanup and disposing of the property.
Most if not all of these cleanup costs would be required even if the
bases were not closing; however, the closures force us to clean them up
for reuse at a faster pace.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and Record of
Decision is the vehicle we and the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA)
use to consider, evaluate and resolve the many competing concerns
before we can convey property. These concerns include evaluating
historic preservation, air quality, noise, traffic, natural habitat,
and endangered species. We have to dispose of a total of 91 BRAC
properties, totaling 166,000 acres. Through the end of January 1998, we
had disposed of 33 properties, representing 8,700 acres. We expect to
dispose of about 12 or more properties per year for the next several
years.
Our rapid closure actions present opportunities for affected
communities to accelerate their efforts towards promoting economic
reuse of the property. Our disposal strategy is designed to support
that effort. Each BRAC closure base has developed a site specific,
phased disposal strategy that supports LRA plans for reuse and
redevelopment of each parcel of land. The disposal strategy is based on
guidance issued last fall by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(NAVFAC) to its field activities.
We want to be both flexible and creative in structuring disposal
agreements, and are pursuing several opportunities for early conveyance
of property under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 334. Section 334
allows us to convey contaminated BRAC property before a cleanup remedy
has been completed. I am pleased to report that we have two prospects
in hand for Section 334 conveyance: Memphis, where ground water
concerns could otherwise delay transfer for several years; and San
Diego, where the LRA is working with us to construct our landfill cap
as part of their runway extension project. We are continuing to develop
these two prospects, and are optimistic that other opportunities will
develop in the future as we continue to work with communities.
We have assigned NAVFAC to manage caretaker functions along with
environmental cleanup responsibilities at all closed BRAC bases. We
want to dispose of the BRAC properties as soon as practicable to
promote economic development and productive reuse of valuable federal
assets before deterioration sets in. We have established cooperative
agreements at many bases where the LRA has accepted responsibility for
providing services such as fire, police, water, sewer, electricity,
gas, and ground care as part of the property transition process.
brac environmental requirements and budgets
Requirements Determination
Public Law 101-510, Section 2906(e) requires the BRAC account to be
the exclusive source of funds for environmental restoration at BRAC
installations. The purpose for fencing the BRAC account was to avoid
the competition for environmental resources between closing bases and
active bases.
BRAC cleanup requirements, plans, and schedules are prepared by a
BRAC cleanup team (BCT) at each BRAC base. The BCT is comprised of
remedial managers from the Department of the Navy, state, and EPA who
collectively oversee and prioritize the necessary cleanups. With the
help of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command and its field
divisions, each base tailors its environmental cleanup plans to best
support the disposal strategy for that base. Our objective is to
complete the cleanup (attain ``response complete'' or ``remedy in
place'' status) for each parcel of land in the order that the LRA has
determined it is needed for actual redevelopment, and then immediately
convey the property.
Each cleanup plan is based on cleanup standards established
cooperatively between the BCT for the base. Input on reuse from the LRA
and the views of the Restoration Advisory Board are also essential
ingredients for a successful cleanup. The Restoration Advisory Board
(RAB), which is co-chaired by a base representative and a community
member, provide an open forum for citizens to better understand the
nature and severity of contamination on our active and closing bases,
and to have a voice in the decision-making process.
It is Department of Defense policy to match cleanup standards to
the intended reuse to the extent feasible. For example, we would not
normally apply a residential cleanup standard if the property was an
industrial area prior to closure. The BCT's work in partnership to
develop and seek approval of specific cleanup standards, to hasten
cleanup and to reduce costs.
We closely evaluate the timing and cost of cleanup with the
disposal strategy of each base. Where reuse potential is weak, we defer
funding in favor of those locations or parcels with more immediate and
realistic reuse needs. Where we plan to convey property to another
federal agency, we will use the Department of Defense relative risk
prioritization model to establish cleanup priorities. If the overall
relative risk is ``low'' or ``medium,'' we may defer cleanup to a
future date, thus allowing us to apply scarce resources today to
support cleanup and property disposal.
Last year, we conducted a ``BRAC Environmental Top-Ten Review.'' We
first identified the ten closure bases with the most expensive
estimated cleanup cost. We then asked each base to come to Washington
and brief us on their disposal strategy, and how currently budgeted
environmental cleanup funds supported that strategy. Bringing together
real estate managers, environmental cleanup managers, and financial
managers at the Major Command, Chief of Staff, and Secretary of the
Navy level brought fresh insight and unified the direction of the BRAC
cleanup and property disposal effort.
BRAC Environmental Budget
Our fiscal year 1999 BRAC environmental budget reflects our
continued strategy to match cleanup priorities with realistic reuse
needs. Of course, many communities would prefer a more accelerated pace
of cleanup. Some communities have complained that contamination, or the
threat of contamination, makes it more difficult to market BRAC
property. I recognize that concern, but fiscal realities and competing
budget priorities limit how much we can allocate to this effort.
Nonetheless, as the following table displays, there are substantial
BRAC environmental funds in our fiscal year 1999 budget request to
support this effort. This funding supports both Navy and Marine Corps
BRAC environmental efforts.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
BRAC environmental --------------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning..................................... 14 2 .......
Compliance................................... 154 122 81
Cleanup...................................... 175 240 199
--------------------------
Total.................................. 343 364 280
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I previously mentioned, most of the BRAC cleanup funds in the
first several years of BRAC are used for initial site evaluation and
characterization studies. We are well beyond that now. As the following
table displays, most of our BRAC environmental funds are for actual
cleanups, not studies.
We recognize the dynamics of reuse, and stand prepared to adjust
cleanup plans as practicable to support evolving LRA needs.
Environmental cleanup funds will support cleanup of parcels that have
the most immediate realistic opportunity for conveyance and reuse by
the LRA.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMILCON.003
environmental cleanup perspective
BRAC Cleanup versus Non-BRAC Cleanup
Many people seek to compare cleanup at BRAC locations with cleanup
at active (i.e., non-BRAC) locations. There are many similarities.
Both BRAC and active bases operate within the context of CERCLA,
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to cleanup soil
and water contamination from past DOD activities. Both may have one or
more sites of potential or known contamination--typically there are 20
to 40 sites being investigated, but sometimes as many as two hundred.
Both have bases where the contamination on at least one site prompts
the Environmental Protection Agency to include the entire base on the
National Priorities List (NPL). The Department of the Navy has 7 BRAC
NPL bases and 42 non-BRAC NPL bases. Both use the DOD relative risk
model to evaluate each contaminated site for its potential to effect
human health and the environment. Approximately 24 percent of the 998
BRAC sites are considered relatively high-risk, while 25 percent of the
3,450 active sites are high-risk. Both have RAB's.
There is, however, one fundamental difference: absent an imminent
health or environmental threat, BRAC cleanups are driven by the need
for economic reuse and redevelopment of property. This critical
difference is what led President Clinton to announce in 1995 a 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.
The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security,
and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Industrial Affairs and
Installations have developed DOD programs and policies to support each
aspect of the President's Plan. These include the Fast Track Cleanup
program to streamline the cleanup decision process; establishment of
Base Transition Coordinators (BTC's) to act as the single point of
contact between the base and the local redevelopment authority; and new
policies such as the Finding of Suitability to Lease, and Finding of
Suitability to Transfer.
The Department also participates in the Defense Environmental
Response Task Force (DERTF), which includes representatives from DOD,
EPA, the General Services Administration, the Department of the
Interior, states and public interest groups. The DERTF examines
performance and policy issues related to the BRAC environmental program
and issues a Report to Congress each year. In particular, the DERTF is
currently examining issues involving the use and long-term viability of
institutional controls. The Department of the Navy continues to be an
active player in DERTF discussions and work groups.
BRAC Cleanup Costs
Through the end of fiscal year 1997, we have spent a total of $1.4
billion in BRAC environmental funds, consisting of about $100 million
in environmental planning, $650 million in environmental compliance,
and $650 million in environmental cleanup. In addition, we spent $115
million of Defense Environmental Restoration Account funds to clean up
sites on these bases before they were included on the BRAC list.
We are continuing to search for ways to reduce cleanup costs. We
are using promising new cleanup technologies at a number of our BRAC
sites. These new technologies can reduce cost or expedite the cleanup
process. We are also working with regulators and communities to better
match cleanup standards to the intended reuse. For example, both the
LRA and the Navy save cleanup costs if we can tie the need for a
landfill cap with the LRA need for a parking area or runway extension
over the same area, as we are planning to do at Naval Training Center,
San Diego, CA. The fiscal year 1999 budget request already incorporates
program savings from these initiatives.
We use a BRAC cost-to-complete index as a measure of our efforts to
reduce cleanup costs. Last year, our BRAC cleanup cost-to-complete
estimate (as of the end of fiscal year 1996) was $2.5 billion. One year
later, our cost-to-complete estimate was $2.1 billion. The reduction of
$400 million is the result of execution of fiscal year 1997
appropriated funds and about $200 million in cost avoidance, such as
changes in risk based approaches for cleanup, new information on the
nature and extent of contamination, and use of new technologies for
characterization or cleanup.
Our estimated cost-to-complete at the end of fiscal year 2001 when
the BRAC account ends is $525 million. Approximately half of this
funding is for continued cleanups at two bases, and the remainder for
long-term monitoring and long-term operation of in-place cleanup
systems. The funds for this effort are currently programmed in the
Environmental Restoration, Navy account, and the Operations and
Maintenance accounts for Navy and Marine Corps.
BRAC Site Close-out Projection
The environmental contamination on our bases are the results of
actions over decades which we now realize are harmful to human health
and the environment. However, we cannot expect to rectify the situation
overnight. It will take time, money, and management attention by all
concerned parties. We are, however, making significant progress. At the
end of fiscal year 1997, we had completed cleanup (response complete or
remedy in place) at 41 percent of the 998 contaminated sites at BRAC
locations. The following chart displays our close-out projections based
on current funding levels through the end of the Future Years Defense
Plan. Final cleanup of all sites is projected to be achieved in fiscal
year 2009.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMILCON.004
Cleanup funds and Disposal: One Example
Naval Air Station Glenview, IL, is a good example of successfully
linking cleanup dollars, cleanup schedules and prompt conveyance of
property to meet the firm reuse plans of a local redevelopment
authority, in this case, the Village of Glenview. Glenview is a BRAC 93
closure action.
The property transfer mechanism for Naval Air Station Glenview, an
Economic Development Conveyance (EDC), was split into two phases: one
for the golf course and the other for the main base. Because the golf
course required virtually no environmental cleanup, it was transferred
in December 1997, within months after approval of the overall EDC.
For the second phase of the EDC execution, the main base was
subdivided into five parcels. We invested $26 million in BRAC
environmental cleanup funds over the period of fiscal year 1994 through
fiscal year 1997 to characterize and clean up three of the sites. This
allowed us to transfer these parcels to the Village of Glenview in
three increments: August 1997, December 1997, and in March 1998.
Groundbreaking for infrastructure developments on these parcels started
last month. The remaining two parcels are scheduled for transfer in May
1998 and September 1999, based on the $17 million in cleanup funds
budgeted in fiscal year 1998.
The disposal strategy, supported with timely BRAC cleanup funds,
allowed us to quickly convey the property, thus getting it off Navy
rolls, eliminating long-term caretaker management and costs, and
allowing the Village of Glenview an early start on redevelopment with
commensurate job generation and tax-base improvement.
conclusion
In conclusion, the Department of the Navy has budgeted BRAC
environmental funds to first meet operational closure and realignment
dates, and then to support realistic economic reuse and redevelopment
efforts of the Local Redevelopment Authorities. Because BRAC
construction and realignments are nearly complete, funding requirements
for these purposes have decreased, and we are now shifting our focus on
cleanup and disposal of BRAC property. Each BRAC base develops its
cleanup requirements based on expected reuse standards, and are
designed to support the disposal strategy for conveyance of the BRAC
property to others. Overall fiscal constraints force us to limit BRAC
cleanup funds to what we believe are the most realistic and pressing
reuse needs.
I urge your continued support of this funding. Without it, BRAC
communities will be left with a one-two punch of closed bases and
contaminated property that precludes job producing reuse and
redevelopment.
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.
Department of the Army
STATEMENT OF PAUL W. JOHNSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (INSTALLATIONS AND
HOUSING), OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY (INSTALLATIONS, LOGISTICS AND
ENVIRONMENT)
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Johnson, thank you for coming today. And, again, thank
you for your patience.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am glad
to be here to speak about the BRAC program and the
environmental costs that go along with it.
Of our four rounds of base closures, we have spent about
$5.2 billion; saving $1 billion per year by the end of 2001. We
will have recurring savings for an indefinite period of time.
The Army BRAC savings in 1997 began to exceed our
implementation costs. That means we started breaking even in
1997. So we are spending less than--or we are getting back at
least as much as we are spending.
The Army is closing and disposing of 112 installations and
realigning 27 installations. We have not been significantly
encumbered by environmental processes, and we have been able to
return property to the local communities consistent with the
time schedules. And in a number of cases, we have sold property
to the private sector for reuse.
Where significant environmental cleanup work was to be
done, we worked with the local redevelopment authority to phase
property conveyances and/or lease property in furtherance of
conveyance so that reuse and cleanup can occur simultaneously.
Beginning in fiscal year 1999, and in future years,
environmental cleanup costs constitute the majority of the BRAC
budget. It does not mean that the BRAC costs are going up; it
means that we are getting further into the realignment process.
We have found that through each succeeding base closure round,
we have been able to transition the property from the Army to
future users more quickly and in a manner that allows
communities to recreate jobs that were lost during the closure.
As soon as we convey the property, we end the operation and
maintenance bills forever and begin to realize all the savings
associated with closing installations. And, of course, you know
that is real O&M money.
Fiscal year 1999 represents a critical year for the Army
BRAC program. The Army plans major restoration efforts of more
than $10 million at each of eight installations, four of which
are on the national priority list. Out of these eight, the
environmental cleanup is supporting imminent reuse at Seneca
Army Depot, Fitzsimons Medical Center, Fort McClellan, Fort
Ord, and Fort Devens. Cleanup and conveyance of these
properties will result in new jobs for these communities. At
Fitzsimons alone, the community is creating more than 10,000
jobs.
Through the BRAC process, we have been able to accelerate
and streamline environmental processes that in the past were
rather cumbersome. The nature of the BRAC process requires all
parties with a vested interest to work together to achieve
success. Partnerships have developed at all BRAC locations
between State and Federal regulators and the Army, known as the
BRAC cleanup team, allowing us to identify quickly the most
cost-effective remediation that is most suitable to the local
community's future plans for the property.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the members of
this committee for all the work that you have done to allow us
to make significant improvement in the BRAC process. With every
BRAC base that we clean up, we clean up those future
liabilities that would have confronted the Department at some
point in the future, and most likely at a much greater cost. We
are making property available to local communities and
promoting the creation of jobs and economic redevelopment in
communities that served the interests of national defense for
decades. We are real proud of all of our installations. We do
not have any bad installations, but some have a greater
military value than others, which is the reason for the BRAC
process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul W. Johnson
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
appear before you to discuss base closure and realignment actions for
fiscal year 1999. These matters are of considerable importance to
America's Army, as well as this committee, and we appreciate the
opportunity to report to you on them.
Our facilities strategy strives to meet the needs of today's
soldiers while also focusing on the changes required to support the
Army of the 21st century. To do this we identify the amount of
infrastructure we need in order to focus our resources on modernization
and readiness. The Army requires fewer facilities than we are currently
maintaining. We must reduce the total cost required to support our
facilities and manage and maintain our real property inventory. The
principal way this is being accomplished is through BRAC. Although the
Army is reducing its infrastructure considerably, more reductions are
necessary. Therefore, we support the Secretary of Defense's request for
two additional rounds of BRAC in 2001 and 2005.
The BRAC process has proven to be the only viable method to
identify and dispose of excess facilities. The Army is in the process
of closing 112 installations and realigning an additional 27 from the
first four rounds of BRAC. We are now in the final third of the 13 year
process to implement these first four rounds. 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 made available to support 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 round, BRAC 95, ahead of schedule, disposing of
property at closed bases, cleaning up contaminated property and
assisting communities with reuse.
In fiscal year 1999, we will begin to focus almost exclusively on
BRAC 1995, the last of the four rounds, along with the conveyance of
properties to local communities for conversion to non-military reuse.
The fiscal year 1999 budget is important because it contains the
resources needed for major construction actions and unit movements, and
allows us to increase our focus on environmental restoration and
property transfer. Therefore, we request that the Congress appropriate
and authorize $489,222,000 in support of the Army's fiscal year 1999
BRAC program.
The Army is accelerating all BRAC actions to obtain savings and
return assets to the private sector as quickly as available resources
will allow. We completed the remainder of all the five closures and
realignment actions approved by the 1991 Commission during fiscal year
1997. In fiscal year 1998, we are closing Stratford Army Engine Plant,
Connecticut; Fort Ritchie, Maryland; Fort Missoula, Montana; and Fort
Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. We completed the disestablishment and
realignment of the Aviation and Troop Command from St. Louis, Missouri
to four other locations in December 1997. The fiscal year 1999 budget
supports the movement of the military police and chemical schools to
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and the closure of Fort McClellan, Alabama.
The Army also plans to close East Fort Baker, California, and move the
Concepts Analysis Agency from leased space in Bethesda, Maryland to a
new facility at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. These actions will nearly
complete all planned closure actions except for the six that are
scheduled for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
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. The Army currently has 100,000
soldiers stationed overseas, and deployed another 31,000 during fiscal
year 1997 on operational missions and training exercises. 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.
During 1997, the Army reached agreements to convey properties to
local communities at four BRAC installations that will result in
immediate property reuse. The Army is using all of the conveyance
options, to include interim leasing at Letterkenny Army Depot, economic
development conveyance at the Materials Technology Lab in Watertown,
Massachusetts and Detroit Arsenal, and negotiated sale at Fort
Sheridan, Illinois. In many instances, employment levels are expected
to exceed those of the Army when the bases were active.
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, 10 have been returned. The total number of
overseas sites announced for closure or partial closure is 664 (see
Table 1). 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.
Table 1
Installations
Germany........................................................... 573
Korea............................................................. 29
France............................................................ 21
Panama............................................................ 13
Netherlands....................................................... 6
Turkey............................................................ 6
United Kingdom.................................................... 5
Greece............................................................ 4
Italy............................................................. 4
Belgium........................................................... 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total......................................................... 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 returns it to the host nation. If
we reduce operations, we end up keeping some of the facilities.
base realignment and closure program status
The Army has completed all realignments and closure actions from
the BRAC 88 and BRAC 91 rounds. The work of property disposal and
environmental remediation at 18 installations will continue for several
years. The Army continues to work with local communities to promote
economic redevelopment in disposal of these properties. Introduction of
economic development conveyances and interim leasing has resulted in
accelerating property reuse and jobs creation at installations that
were previously unavailable pending completion of environmental
restoration efforts.
The Army continues to accelerate the implementation of the BRAC 93
and BRAC 95 rounds. BRAC 93 is complete, with the exception of the
realignment of Fort Monmouth, which is scheduled for fiscal year 1998.
The Army is in the third year of the implementation of BRAC 95, after
which 19 of the 29 closure and four of 11 realignment actions will be
complete. Interim leases and economic development conveyances are
making properties at these installations available to the local
communities earlier in the process. The Army is currently working with
local communities at Letterkenny Army Depot and Detroit Arsenal to make
industrial facilities available for reuse in 1998. The former
Fitzsimons Army Medical Center is now being converted to a University
Medical Center. Negotiations and required environmental restoration
continue at other installations, and additional conveyances are likely
in the near future.
For the period 1989 through 1997, the Army has spent $3,570,251,000
to implement the first four rounds of BRAC. The Army is realizing
$649,951,000 in annual recurring savings in fiscal year 1998, and has
realized a total of $2,556,807,000 in savings during the implementation
period through the end of fiscal year 1997. Upon implementation of all
actions from the first four BRAC rounds the Army will achieve annual
savings of $949,000,000 beginning in fiscal year 2002.
The Army has completed environmental actions at 747 of a total of
1,943 environmental cleanup sites through fiscal year 1997.
Environmental restoration efforts were complete at 63 installations
through fiscal year 1997, out of a total of 122 installations. The Army
remains focused on supporting environmental cleanup actions required to
support property reuse and will continue to fund environmental cleanup
actions that are required in support of property transfer and reuse.
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. Continuation of
accelerated implementation requires the execution of the fiscal year
1999 program as planned and budgeted. We request your support by
providing the necessary BRAC funding for fiscal year 1999.
We remain committed to promoting economic redevelopment at our BRAC
installations. We are supporting early reuse of properties through
economic development conveyances, as well as the early transfer and
interim leasing options made possible by Congress last year. Real
property assets are being conveyed to local communities, permitting
them to quickly enter into business arrangements with the private
sector. Local communities, with the Army's support and encouragement,
are working to develop business opportunities that result in jobs and
tax revenues. The successful conversion of former Army installations to
productive use in the private sector is something all of us can be
proud of.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you.
Department of the Air Force
STATEMENT OF JIMMY G. DISHNER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE (INSTALLATIONS)
Senator Burns. Thank you.
Mr. Dishner, thank you for coming this morning.
Mr. Dishner. Yes, sir; thank you, Senator Burns.
The Air Force continues in its environmental review
process. And expenditures, our total is about $1.5 billion that
has been spent to date. And we will do, after 2001, about $1.3
billion more, to finish up. So, about $2.8 billion will be the
total expenditures that the Air Force has done.
The percentage of expenditures from the base realignment
and closure account for environmental costs is going up
compared to previous years, because now we are into the actual
cleanup of the bases, where before we had Milcon being done to
beddown the other missions that would be moved from a closing
to a gaining base. So the percentage of the total goes up a
little bit for operating and maintenance cost on those bases.
The majority, however, will be environmental. The agency in the
Air Force, as compared to the other two services that do this,
is the Air Force Base Conversion Agency that I set up in 1992.
They have about 338 employees that includes both the total at
each one of the bases and those we have in Virginia. So that
percentage gets smaller and smaller as we convert more
installations. I have a chart here, Mr. Chairman, that I will
show you, where those expenditures on the environmental side
are headed.
We committed to a timely and thorough environmental
restoration and smooth transition of our closing bases to
civilian uses. We are very proud of the cooperative ethic that
we have with those bases and the communities. We efficiently
clean up not to an excess standard but to a standard that is
acceptable and required by law, and also to remain a good
neighbor to those people who supported the Air Force for so
many years.
As I mentioned a moment ago, a significant portion of our
future budget will be used to continue operating and monitoring
our cleanup systems. Most of the LTO/LTM--that is long-term
operation and long-term monitoring--will be in place, and we
will be able to continue to monitor the cleanup. Most of that
work, by the way, and most of that expenditure, is in
underground water contamination.
We have not had any national priority list [NPL] delisting
as yet. However, we have a process underway, in meeting with
the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], to see how we can
look at that, to get some of these locations that are on the
NPL delisted.
Our associates in the regulatory community and our
neighbors in BRAC communities are part and parcel of the
success that we are having and continue to have. We strive to
ensure that our closure and disposal actions meet all
environmental regulations and laws, and seeking out those
partnerships which the Air Force Base Conversion Agency has
been very successful in working out with all the regions
throughout the United States, where we have bases and have to
deal with the EPA regions, and with the local communities and
the States--have been very, very successful.
prepared statement
Through the support of this committee, of course, we
continue to meet our environmental responsibilities--and your
interest--to look at this expense as it continues to go on, on
bases that were closed in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995, is
certainly focused correctly. And I think the Air Force can show
where, with a very conservative approach, we have been able to
spend those dollars and project the expenditure of those
dollars in the best way possible.
And it is a privilege to be here today to testify. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jimmy G. Dishner
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank you for
this opportunity to update you on the progress we are making toward
meeting the Air Force challenges of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
today and to discuss the challenges we face in the next century. I
first want to assure you that by incorporating our environmental
program into the base conversion process the Air Force protects the
interests of our communities and facilitates reuse.
overview
The Department of the Air Force continues to be committed to timely
and thorough environmental restoration, and smooth transition of
closing bases to civilian uses as soon as possible. The Air Force BRAC
environmental program continues to lead the way as responsible stewards
of our human, fiscal and natural resources by:
--Fast track environmental clean up efforts;
--Constructing and operating remedies to clean up contaminated sites;
--Fully complying with all environmental regulations;
--Building strong partnerships with regulators and communities;
--Accelerated reuse through the use of the Early Transfer Authority;
and
--Using risk-based decisions, innovative technologies, peer reviews
of proposed remedies and optimization techniques for our
remedies and monitoring to reduce costs and make our
appropriated dollars go farther.
Our campaign to foster a cooperative ethic within the Air Force
culture has enabled us to efficiently clean up property for transfer
and create jobs on former installations, remain a good neighbor, and
remain a leader in environmental cleanup. Through these cooperative
efforts, the Air Force received concurrence of a cleanup system
operating properly and successfully at Norton Air Force Base (AFB) in
1996. This means that the cleanup effort is accomplishing what we set
out to do, with concurrence of EPA and state regulators. This enabled
over 1,200 acres to be made available for deed transfer. To date there
are only five such occurrences in the federal government.
After deed transfers, the Air Force intends to meet its legal
obligation to do the long-term maintenance and long-term monitoring
connected with the clean-up action until National Priority List
delisting and site closure.
environmental success stories
Through the Annual Report to Congress on environmental cleanup we
highlight our success stories and progress. However, the annual report
highlights only a fraction of the success stories of the Air Force BRAC
environmental program. I would like to take this opportunity to relay
other successes regarding our strategies for reducing costs and making
our appropriated dollars go farther. These successes are a result of
our open relationship and partnering with both the regulatory community
and our installation neighborhoods.
--At Plattsburgh AFB, NY, Air Force personnel completed a remedial
design for two landfill caps. The design incorporated the use
of 30,000 cubic yards of pre-treated soil from the base as part
of the landfill caps. This resulted in a significant cost
avoidance of $400,000-$500,000, the cost of clean fill
material.
--At Kelly AFB, TX, results from monitoring a groundwater plume
indicated the plume size was diminishing due to natural
degradation. The potential cost avoidance of selecting natural
attenuation versus installation of a cleanup system will be
significant.
--At Wurtsmith AFB, MI, we have demonstrated and received regulatory
concurrence that natural attenuation is the preferred remedial
alternative at seven sites where the groundwater is
contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE). This will result in
saving the cost of installing a cleanup system at each of the
sites.
environmental budget
Our environmental budget for fiscal year 1999 totals $152M. Our
program primarily focuses on environmental projects to clean-up
contaminated sites which expedites property transfer. From fiscal year
1990 through fiscal year 1999 we will have received $1.9B for the BRAC
environmental program. These funds will have allowed us to install all
necessary cleanup systems at 20 of our 28 bases. The Air Force
continues to work with communities impacted by our base closure
realignment to clean up the environmental contamination and put
property and facilities into economic reuse. On our current schedule,
we plan to have remedies in place at all our BRAC installations by the
year 2002, with the exception of McClellan AFB in CA.
After fiscal year 1999 our projected yearly program drops
significantly. Our fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2005 budget is
projected to be $617M. Using peer reviews, technical assistance visits,
innovative technologies, partnering, and approaches to optimize long-
term operation and maintenance we are controlling and reducing long-
term costs associated with operation and monitoring of cleanup systems.
We will avoid $178.1M in environmental costs through completion of the
program utilizing these strategies. The methods that Air Force is
utilizing to optimize cleanup costs over the life cycle of the program
have become a model that is being used by the other services.
The following graph provides a snapshot of our BRAC cleanup
program. Although the graph indicates that 27 installations will have
cleanup systems in place by fiscal year 2002, the work doesn't end
there; in fact, the real environmental cleanup begins.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TMILCON.005
A significant portion of our future budget will be used to continue
operating and monitoring our cleanup systems until our cleanup goals
are achieved. The Air Force has taken the lead in working with our
stakeholders to develop the framework for meeting our cleanup goals and
reaching site closeout. This effort is expected to be published as a
joint DOD/EPA guidance document and includes efforts such as cleanup
performance reviews, delisting of National Priority List sites, long-
term monitoring, and decommissioning of cleanup systems and wells. We
are looking forward to briefing you in the near future on the lessons
we have learned in meeting cleanup goals and reaching site closeout to
finish the cleanup job!
community relations
We are maintaining our good neighbor ethic in every BRAC community
we previously called home. Our cleanup programs offer us a unique
opportunity to show our communities that we care and respect them as
legitimate partners in reaching community-based solutions to enhance
reuse. By working together with our communities toward the common goal
of job creation and a safe environment, the State of Indiana and the
United States Air Force made history last year when they became the
first to implement a dynamic new law established to assist in economic
redevelopment. Grissom AFB represents one of the first instances of
applying the amendment to Superfund law that allows the transfer of
contaminated federal property with the concurrence of the governor
prior to the completion of cleanup while cleanup efforts proceed. As a
result the State of Indiana is able to meet a pressing public-safety
need and will be constructing a multi million dollar state prison that
will create hundreds of jobs for the community. Use of this early
transfer authority was a win-win for Air Force, the state and the
community while still addressing the environmental concerns of all
parties. In light of this success we are in the process of using this
authority at Mather, Griffiss and Lowry AFB's and will continue to
identify opportunities for its application.
As our record shows, we are dedicated to improving our already open
relationships both with the regulatory community and with our former
neighbors in BRAC communities. We strive to ensure our closure and
disposal actions 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 community Restoration Advisory Boards (RAB's) are an integral
part of planning and prioritizing our environmental cleanups. We
provide RAB's with a summary of all projects, create subcommittees to
review technical documents, provide periodic site tours, and provide
training in the installation restoration program. We have moved forward
with the implementation of the Technical Assistance for Public
Participation (TAPP) program. The TAPP program allows DOD to help RAB
community members use the services of independent experts to explain
the more technical aspects of our cleanup efforts. The RAB advice is
proving invaluable as we move forward putting remedies in place at all
of our installations. The RAB's are also providing advice for
adjourning once our cleanup systems are in place. For example, the
Bergstrom and Norton RAB's, were adjourned because they had fulfilled
their advisory purpose since all cleanup actions had been implemented
at these bases.
conclusion
Through the support of this committee we continue to meet our
environmental responsibilities. We are investing our dollars wisely. We
have completed our studies and installed most of our clean-up systems.
We are cleaning up the contamination and we are actively protecting
human health and the environment as we transition property for reuse
and development.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the
opportunity to come before you to share what we believe is a very
innovative, progressive and efficient environmental program.
Senator Burns. Thank you.
And, Senator Murray, if you have some questions and you
have a conflict, do you want to lead it off this morning, and
then you can put the rest of them in the record?
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I just
have one that I would like to ask, and then I would insert the
rest into the record.
Senator Burns. Sure.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
The President's request includes authority for a new BRAC
round, but no money to begin execution in fiscal year 1999. Can
you tell us whether you have specific assessments of the cost
of a new BRAC round? And can you supply us with some of those
figures yet?
Mr. Pirie. We can provide you with estimates for the
record. There is no cost since the rounds requested are in 2001
and 2005. We would not incur any costs in fiscal year 1999. But
we have, in fact, put notional wedges in the out-year programs
for BRAC closures.
Senator Murray. OK, if we could have those, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, ma'am.
[The information follows:]
Table F-7 on page 120 of Appendix F of ``The Report of the
Department of Defense on Base Realignment and Closure,'' of April 1998
provided the following estimated costs and savings for new BRAC rounds
in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2005 for DOD:
COSTS AND SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR BRAC ROUNDS IN 2001 AND 2005
[In billions of fiscal year 1999 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steady
Round 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total state
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC 2001:
Costs.................................................. 1.2 1.9 1.7 1.2 1.1 0.8 ...... ...... ...... ...... 7.8 ......
Savings................................................ 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 13.6 1.7
Net cost (savings)..................................... 0.8 1.3 0.5 (0.2) (0.5) (0.9) (1.7) (1.7) (1.7) (1.7) (5.8) (1.7)
============================================================================================
BRAC 2005:
Costs.................................................. ..... ..... ..... ...... 1.2 1.9 1.7 1.2 1.1 0.8 7.8 ......
Savings................................................ ..... ..... ..... ...... 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.7 6.8 1.7
Net costs (savings).................................... ..... ..... ..... ...... 0.8 1.3 0.5 (0.2) (0.5) (0.9) 1.0 (1.7)
============================================================================================
Total:
Costs.................................................. 1.2 1.9 1.7 1.2 2.3 2.6 1.7 1.2 1.1 0.8 15.6 ......
Savings................................................ 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.4 2.0 2.2 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.4 20.4 3.4
Net costs (savings).................................... 0.8 1.3 0.5 (0.2) 0.3 0.4 (1.1) (1.9) (2.2) (2.6) (4.8) (3.4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated future costs and savings for fiscal years 2002 and 2003
are contained in DOD's FYDP.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit the
rest of my questions.
base environmental assessment
Senator Burns. OK. Thank you, Senator Murray.
I was interested in some of the statements, I want to go
into them a little more. In the majority of cases, and I say
maybe in all cases, whenever you start in a base that is
finally shutdown from all operations, and you start in the
environmental cleanup, can you give me a thumbnail sketch--and
maybe all three of you do it the same way--what is the process
we go through when we start environmental cleanup?
In other words, what process--now that all the people, the
mission is gone, the equipment is out of there, you have an
empty base, with probably, what, some operations and
maintenance [O&M] people to kind of keep everything intact--
what is the process? What is the next process that you start
when you start cleaning up a base?
Mr. Dishner. Senator, I will start and then defer to Robert
or Paul.
The process is very strictly, but not overly so, defined,
because it all builds up to the subject of today, which is the
environmental assessment. The communities are required to
prepare a land use plan. And that land use plan done by the
community is submitted to the Air Force. And it really is the
predicate to anything that is done subsequently. The land use
plan projects what the raw land and the improvements will be
used for.
The Air Force then--and I think the other services are the
same--take that and do an environmental impact statement, and,
say, do the assessment of that against the properties which
they are going to use. That assessment then directs what level
of cleanup, how we would clean up, what are some of the
mitigating factors that we need to assess to do for that
specific use.
I cannot recall ever where the reuse got changed, that we
had to go back and redo an environmental impact statement
[EIS], as an example, which is a very time consuming and very
expensive document to prepare. But it is really driven by what
the community feels they want to reuse that base for.
Subsequently, the environmental impact statement is done.
That is a part of the whole process of the secretarial decision
of the record of decision of how the base is going to be used.
So, the environmental impact of that reuse is No. 1. Then there
is the secretarial determination in support of that, and saying
why the Secretary is directing that this record of decision be
issued.
Then, as we go down the pike, of course, working with the
communities, and now going from not only a study of the
environmental aspect with the background of the reuse that is
projected by the community, is where we get into what are the
things that need to be done. Do we have lead-based paint? Which
currently we leave that in situ. But we notify them, by the
way, the building or the wall that has lead-based paint.
If it is friable asbestos, which comes from insulation, et
cetera, we are required to take it out. If it is nonfriable, we
are not required to take it out.
The big issue and the big dollar spenders, of course, is
where we unfortunately have polluted the water supply, the
groundwater supply. It is a very expensive, very long-term
cleanup to pump that water, pump and treat, and put it back
again. That is laid out also. And it is done throughout the
base. If you have looked at some of the drawings--I am sorry I
do not have any for you today, but it is almost pockmarked, and
you can sort of see where those environmental impacts were
done.
The community uses that as a guide to outline areas that
cannot be deeded real fast because we have not cleaned it up.
Some subsequent mechanisms to give them the property in
furtherance of conveyance is helping that. So, we are able to
define for the community where we have these problems that we
cannot deed it today, but we can give you the use of it today
until, in fact, we will eventually clean it up.
So, to me, it is an iterative process. It is started,
however, with what is the future use of that base that the
community thinks they are proposing for the next 5 or 10 or 15
years--the ultimate use of the base.
Mr. Pirie. Our process is very similar to the Air Force
process. But let me make a few other remarks about the whole
closure process.
We go through various stages of closure, from mission cease
to operational closure to conveyance of the property. And
during the time that that is going on, there are differing
levels of activity on the base. Even after operational closure
of the base you still have a very substantial number of
military and civilian employees on the base, doing various
things. There may be tenant activities that are slow to move
out and all that kind of thing.
Meanwhile, we are dealing with the local redevelopment
authority about how the conveyance is going to take place. And,
in particular, if there are places on the base that they want
to lease and start using fairly early, then we have to proceed
with a finding of suitability to lease and so forth. So that
would affect the cleanup plans for that particular area.
In most cases, when we know we are going to close a base,
we get started on the cleanup before any of the local
redevelopment authority activity takes place or before they
have a plan. In many cases, we are already cleaning up the
base, because that is simply an ongoing process of ours.
So, you have a lot of overlapping activities, both in the
moving-out process and in the process of cleanup.
In some cases, we convey bases to the community, where the
cleanup--for example, the groundwater cleanup--simply is
ongoing. And we will monitor that over a long period of time
after the base is turned over to the communities. So, it really
depends upon the local situation a great deal exactly when the
cleanups start, how they are focused and so forth. We generally
try to accommodate the communities' concern about reuse.
Senator Burns. Is it the same with the Army, Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Pretty much the same. We start with an
environmental baseline study, to determine what the
contaminants are.
Senator Burns. Is that a complete EIS? Do you use the EIS?
Mr. Johnson. We do that. We start the NEPA process a little
later, after we get the EBS completed to determine the
contaminants that are there, after the community comes up with
a reuse plan. Then we put it in the program for funding. The
priorities are the health and safety problems that we have.
Reuse is also a high priority, because we want to get it back
on the tax rolls. We follow the NEPA process all the way
through.
Senator Burns. All of you do an EIS before you--is an EIS
required?
Mr. Pirie. Environmental impact statements are required
where there is a choice or an alternative. Where the Commission
has said you will move X to Y, and there is no alternative,
then an environmental impact statement is not required. But if
there is an alternative location to which the activity can be
moved, then an environmental impact statement is required.
contractor selection
Senator Burns. Once you have made the assessment, once you
have made the environmental assessment of what is going to be
needed to make conveyance, now then you engage a contractor, an
environmental contractor? Or do you do that in-house?
Mr. Johnson. Sometimes we do it in-house and sometimes by
contracting out. If we have the same type of reuse, we may get
by with just an environmental assessment. We can do that in-
house. But if it is a change in reuse then we get an EIS.
Mr. Dishner. Normally we would use probably a contractor
under the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence [AFCEE]
at Brooks Air Force Base, which handles most of that. Because
we want to have it centered in one place and we do not want to
be doing it somewhere else. So if there is a question on the
environmental, whether it be on the study, an assessment of
what is there, or actually doing the contracting to clean
something up and treat it, et cetera, the majority of our work
is done through AFCEE. There is a little bit done by the Corps
of Engineers, but the majority of it is done by AFCEE.
Senator Burns. Is it the same with the Navy, Secretary
Pirie?
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir.
I think this is fairly confusing, because you have a lot of
different laws and processes at work here. But to give you an
example from the Navy point of view, the closure of Cecil Field
in Florida and the movement of the F/A-18's to Oceana or Cherry
Point or Beaufort. If the Commission had directed that the
activity at Cecil Field be moved only to one location, say,
Oceana, then from the point of view of Cecil Field, an
environmental impact statement would not have been required. We
would have done an assessment.
The Cecil Field reuse authorities are going to use it as a
commercial and industrial activity, so as Mr. Johnson said,
since it is going to be used for the same kind of activity, we
would not be required to go into an extensive environmental
impact statement. The reason we are doing an environmental
impact statement for the Cecil Field move is the impact on the
environment of the receiving activities. And so we have to do
it at both ends.
Senator Burns. Now, once the contract has been given and an
environmental activity started--in other words, the contractor
starts completing the mission of cleaning up--now, whether it
be in-house, using Corps of Engineers, our own people that are
in the military or whether we are using a civilian contractor,
who supervises those contracts and the work?
Mr. Pirie. In the Navy, the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command supervises the contracts and the work wherever we are
cleaning up bases.
Mr. Dishner. The Air Force Base Conversion Agency, which is
the agency to do all the closure, real estate, and environment,
through the AFCEE that I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Johnson. Mostly the Corps of Engineers, as far as the
EIS is concerned. But if you are talking about further cleanup,
of course, that is the contracting officer. In most cases, it
is the Corps of Engineers.
Senator Burns. And are time lines set up and these type
things? Is that all in the contract? In other words, there is
an expected time when we are done with it and the expected
result?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct. Of course, sometimes during
cleanup you will find something that you did not know was
there, particularly unexploded ordnance and that sort of thing.
It takes a long time, because you have got to have your people
``mag'' it and ``flag'' it and then either dig it up and move
it or detonate it in place. So, the time lines are set for the
unexploded ordnance.
And, of course, groundwater monitoring is very costly and
time consuming. So it can go on for years.
Senator Burns. Secretary Johnson, you bring up a point. Do
we have the technology to dispose of our ordnance that should
be disposed of?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. And we do have centers that do that? Or do
we do that on site?
Mr. Johnson. Well, it depends. We do have centers. But if
you are talking about unexploded ordnance, then you flag it. If
you can pick it up and move it, you move it to a place that you
can detonate it. If you cannot move it, you have to get some
approval from EPA, to detonate it in place. That is basically a
very primitive technology that we have in cleaning up the
unexploded ordnance.
Air Force ordnance disposal
Senator Burns. How about the Air Force or the Navy in the
disposal of ordnance?
Mr. Dishner. The Army does the large ordnance. Some of the
small firing ranges, et cetera, we handle in-house.
Senator Burns. In-house?
Mr. Dishner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pirie. The same for the Navy, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Can that be recycled?
Mr. Dishner. Well, in the case of firing ranges, where most
munitions now have lead base on the point, they have a mountain
of sand, which they use as a buffer to fire into, that is just
loaded with lead. And we have been successful, I think, in one
location, where we went to the community, and the community
said, well, the State police want to continue using the range
after conveyance. They said to not clean it up and that we
could fire more lead into it. So they assumed the liability for
taking the lead, because it was going to continue to be used as
a firing range.
Senator Burns. That was the next thing, you know. The
supervision of those contracts when you are all done. How tough
has it been? Now, Mr. Johnson, you made the statement that you
are starting to get a return on your cleanup now. In other
words, you are conveying some of that property into private
hands, and those moneys, I guess put against the environmental
cleanup or the entire operation of cleaning up the base, you
say that we are starting to realize some return on that?
Mr. Johnson. Yes; so far, we have received $112 million and
we have some accounts receivable of about $45 million more. It
is due to some of the deals we have made where we do not take
the money up front, we let the reuse authority pay us a little
later on. That is the $45 million.
Now, that money goes back into the BRAC account. And we
have used some of that to do other BRAC operations, such as
cleanup.
brac residual funds
Senator Burns. In other words, the funds for conveyance,
the sales of a unit or a camp or whatever, that goes back in
the BRAC account, that does not go back into the U.S. Treasury?
Mr. Johnson. That is correct. It goes into the BRAC
account. And we reuse it for BRAC actions.
Mr. Dishner. That was established by law, referred to as
the account for BRAC residuals. The Air Force account, as an
example, has about $20 million to $21 million. And I think just
a few months ago I released $15 million of that to actually
reduce some costs. They were not environmental, unfortunately,
at the specific time, but they can be used for anything. So
that we do not have to come back, then, and borrow those
additional dollars from the taxpayers.
Mr. Pirie. But the money from the property sales is a
relatively small amount. You are talking about tens of millions
compared to the expenses of BRAC which in the Navy's case has
been about $7.5 billion. The real savings in BRAC come from the
closure of the bases and getting the employees off the rolls.
Mr. Johnson. I want to put in a pitch about keeping the
BRAC account open beyond 2001, because that is where we put the
money from the accounts receivable back into O&M.
Mr. Dishner. When that BRAC runs out, I do not know if the
dollars we get back are going right back into the Treasury. So
it would be--woops--because it is easy to show, then--at some
point in time I think we all would like to know where the
expenditure or projected expenditure, has gone. Offset to
whatever degree the income was from that transaction.
As soon as that happens, I guess we can have an accounting
procedure to count it before it goes into the Treasury, but to
me that is another issue. There are two BLIPS with that
process. One is to continue a BRAC designation to be able to
continue to corral those costs and know right where you are at
from day to day, year to year. The second is to have the income
against that show what additional dollars were not asked for,
because although low dollars as Robin said, is absolutely
correct, that is one less dollar then we had to take out from
the regular account.
Senator Burns. That is under the woops theory. I understand
that. You learned that at Texas A&M, I assume. [Laughter.]
Mr. Dishner. Yes, sir; I did.
Senator Burns. What happens--and I guess the next question,
what happens if there is no conveyance? Now, are we funding
some property that is unsalable, that is just undesirable for
the market? Have we run across that yet?
Mr. Dishner. I think in the Air Force we found properties
or a property, maybe two T's, properties, not the whole base,
but are slower because they are in an area that is very rural,
and in other rural areas, but we have no bases that there is no
one renting them or leasing them, and purchasing some
environmentally clean property. There are no bases just laying
there fallow, where we have just locked the gate and walked
away because they cannot be used.
Mr. Pirie. We do not expect to have any that cannot be
conveyed, Mr. Chairman, and the experience before the BRAC law
came in in 1988 of bases that were just abandoned and put in
caretaker status and locked up is not encouraging. They become
an eyesore and a public nuisance. We would be much better off
to clean these places up and turn them over to the communities.
Senator Burns. We did that in the case of radar bases in
Montana that they had a very definite use for, and by the way,
Mr. Dishner, that is a very successful program for those
communities, like in Conrad, MT, and we did another one in
Forsythe, MT. These were very small radar installations for the
low-flying missions up there, and so that has been very
successful.
But I was just wondering what would happen if there is no
conveyance made, and I would imagine now the Navy may end up--
of course, I think the Army probably has a better opportunity
to move some of their properties into private hands more than
Air Force and Navy, because you just use land, for your uses.
Tell me about the progress at Marine Corps Air Station El
Toro.
Mr. Pirie. Well, the Marine Corps Air Station El Toro is in
the process of being closed and cleaned up. There is contention
in the community about whether it should be an aviation
facility or something else when it is reused in the community.
That has not been resolved, but in terms of progress and
closure and moving the Marine Corps out, that is proceeding in
an orderly way.
Senator Burns. What kinds of challenges do you find there?
Underground tanks, I would assume? I know something about that
base. That is where I was mustered out.
Mr. Pirie. We have underground storage tanks that have to
be remediated. We have some petroleum in the soil that needs
work. I am not certain about a landfill or not, but I would be
surprised if there was not a landfill that did not have to be
probably capped and monitored, things of that kind, Senator.
Senator Burns. Has that work started?
Mr. Pirie. Some of that work has started, yes, sir.
Senator Burns. Did we have some questions about Clark Air
Force Base? No; Presidio. How are we doing on Presidio in San
Francisco? Has that conveyance been made?
Mr. Johnson. Yes; we still have some cleanup questions
about San Francisco. Almost the whole thing has gone into the
trust, the Presidio Trust I believe is the name of it, but yes;
the transfer has been basically complete. We still have some
cleanup work.
castle AFB cleanup status
Senator Burns. Castle Air Force Base is the one in
California. Progress on that?
Mr. Dishner. It is doing very, very well, 90 percent in
reuse, so that one has been right up there. In fact, they just
gave me, if I may, BRAC reuse data for 1988-95 bases. BRAC
1988, is at 98 percent; BRAC 1991, 76 percent reuse; BRAC 1993,
70 percent reuse; BRAC 1995, 5 percent, an average of 64
percent reuse, sir.
Senator Burns. All right. I guess those are the questions I
had on that.
Now, Fort Ord, that conveyance has been made?
Mr. Johnson. Most of it has been made, but we still have
quite a ways to go on it. We have an EDC in for the rest of it.
Most of it has been transferred to the State University, which
is underway. Things are going fine.
Senator Burns. Tell me, if I was a contractor and my job
was environmental cleanup spills, no matter what, how could I
do business with you if I wanted to find work?
Mr. Johnson. We have a regular procedure where we have a
computerized form that you fill out and send to Dallas, TX. I
believe it is where the consolidation place is.
Senator Burns. You might want to pull that microphone up
there. We are getting a complaint; folks cannot hear.
Mr. Johnson. We have a regular system for contractors to
get in touch with the Corps of Engineers, which do most of the
Army's work, and that is located, I believe, in Dallas, TX,
where we give anybody that is interested a form. They fill it
out, mail it in, and if they are qualified to do work, then
they are put on the list.
Senator Burns. Is that the same with the Air Force?
Mr. Dishner. Yes, sir; at the Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence at Brooks in San Antonio. You can come
up on the web, come up on the Internet, find out what projects
are available if you want to put your name in the hopper as a
contractor or remove certain information whatever it may be as
a contractor in the environmental arena.
You have to have certain certifications to do that, as I
know you know, Mr. Chairman, but that is how you would find out
what was happening in your area or in your State, sir.
Mr. Pirie. We have essentially the same process in the
Navy, through the Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
contractor competitive bidding process
Senator Burns. Now, are those put out on competitive bids?
Mr. Dishner. Yes, sir; we have some contractors we picked
up earlier, earlier meaning 2 or 3 years, where we did what is
referred to as an ID/IQ, which is indefinite delivery,
indefinite quantity, to do that. They in turn are then
triggered when a request comes in from a base to do certain
work.
But not all the work is covered through that mechanism of
an ID/IQ. The main thrust was to try to make sure we did not
forget the contractor in the local community and give them a
chance to put a bid in for a contract. It was to be sent, not
necessarily as a Small Business Administration [SBA], to make
sure the contractor had an opportunity to bid.
Senator Burns. The same with you, Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Basically it is, if we have--the construction
work is done competitively. If it is architect-engineer work,
then it is negotiated.
Mr. Pirie. It is a competitive process in the Navy. As in
the case of the Air Force we have large omnibus contracts that
are open and can be assigned work as it develops.
Senator Burns. I bring that up for the simple reason I can
remember going back to the old Reserve Officer's Training Corp
[ROTC] days when we went through the savings and loan [S&L]
fiasco, and in order to be an auctioneer they required a $1
million bond. Well, I can tell you from auctioneers there ain't
none of us worth $1 million. [Laughter.]
And they were trying to hire auctioneers in Chicago to sell
property in Phoenix, and that did not work very well, and
sometimes local contractors have local knowledge. That saves us
all money in the long run.
I had this hearing today--and we are going to be cutting it
a little bit short. I want to work with you on this particular
problem of environmental cleanup, and the reason for the
hearing is no more than this, that Congress is aware that we
have had these obligations and we want to do them as
economically and as expediently as we can, understanding
budgetary strains and all other things that are falling now on
the military, and I am very, very concerned about some areas of
it. We are just looking for ways to streamline and to do some
things.
I will probably have some more questions. I appreciate your
statements. I do not think the American public was really aware
of our obligations out there, or the cost of those obligations,
and I think they should be made aware of that whenever we start
conveying this property, we want to convey a property that is,
I would hope, environmentally what its next use will match.
I do not think we have to clean them up to the point where
you will be able to eat off the runway, so to speak, but
nonetheless I really believe that the next use--and that is the
involvement of the communities and what that is going to be
used for--is very, very important in those communities.
Additional committee questions
So I appreciate that. I have probably got two or three
other questions that I will ask and write to you and we will
get those cleared up.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Assistant Secretary Robert B. Pirie, Jr.
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
environmental costs
Question. How much money will you have spent by the year 2001 to
clean up the bases from the first four rounds of base closure?
Answer. Based on funding trends in the current budget, $2.9 billion
will be spent on environmental (planning, compliance, cleanup) for all
four BRAC rounds through fiscal year 2001.
Question. The costs of environmental cleanup will extend beyond the
statutory limit for base closure expenditures. What kind of
environmental activities will continue and for how long? How much do
you anticipate that these long-term procedures will cost?
Answer. In addition to continuing cleanup at several locations,
most notably Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard and Long Beach Naval
Complex, we will need to continue long-term operations and monitoring
of cleanup remedies into the year 2010 and beyond. Our current
projection is $526 million in environmental cleanup costs beyond fiscal
year 2001.
Question. What steps are you taking to reduce the overall costs of
long-term environmental monitoring?
Answer. We are working with EPA and State regulators now to
identify issues, develop alternative operating practices and associated
costs for long-term environmental monitoring. Our objective is to agree
to a streamlined and simplified practice that still ensure proper
operating parameters at a reasonable costs.
Question. Do we have technology available to effectively cleanup
groundwater contamination and unexploded ordinance?
Answer. Depending on site conditions and types and levels of
contaminants, there are many alternative remedies available to cleanup
groundwater contamination. Cleanup of unexploded ordinance, however, is
at this point a difficult and expensive proposition with few choices.
The Army, with support from the other services and private industry, is
focusing research and development efforts on detection systems as well
as cleanup alternatives for unexploded ordinance.
Question. What are the major cost drivers with respect to cleaning
up BRAC installations?
Answer. Many of the major costs drivers for cleanup at BRAC
locations are identical to the cost drivers at non-BRAC installations
(e.g., assessments, sampling, remedial studies and the actual cleanup).
Environmental baseline surveys, done only for closing bases, add
additional cost. There is, however, one major difference: BRAC cleanup
is driven by reuse and redevelopment needs and timelines. This
generally accelerates cleanup needs. Reuse needs can also affect
cleanup standards.
Question. To what degree do Federal and local regulators dictate
the plan and pace of the environmental clean up at BRAC sites?
Answer. Reuse and redevelopment needs are a far greater factor in
dictating the plan and pace of cleanup at BRAC sites. Each major
closing base has formed a base cleanup team, or BCT, comprised of
representatives from DON, EPA, and State regulators. They work closely
with local redevelopment authorities to set mutually agreed cleanup
standards, priorities, and time lines for cleanup.
program challenges
Question. What is your most significant challenge to completing the
environmental cleanup on the BRAC installations?
Answer. Matching reasonable cleanup alternatives and time lines to
community expectations. If we perform the cleanup too quickly, we may
be spending money that would be better served at another location with
more pressing needs; or we may waste money doing unnecessary cleanup;
or lose the opportunity to save money by tying a cleanup remedy to the
reuse plan (e.g., a cleanup remedy that calls for a landfill cap along
with a reuse plan that calls for a runway extension over the same
ground). Conversely, if we go too slow, we will likely delay reuse,
redevelopment and job creation opportunities for the communities that
hosted our Sailors and Marines for many years.
Question. How are you cleaning up ranges with unexploded ordnance?
Answer. For inactive (not now in use, but could be used) and active
ranges, we perform range maintenance functions such as surface sweeps,
but do not do cleanup. Under the new DOD range rule, we are in the
early stages of establishing a CERCLA like process for cleanup of
closed, transferred, and transferring ranges. We expect to begin
initial site characterization efforts in fiscal year 2000.
Question. What is the status of efforts to turn over facilities
with lead-based paint? What is the DOD position on this issue?
Answer. We are working with EPA to resolve issues in this area. HUD
Title X regulations provide requirements for lead based paint hazards
in residential areas. DOD complies with these regulations. Some
regulators contend that DOD should go beyond these regulations. DOD,
HUD and GSA are developing a field guide to ensure that all personnel
understand the requirements. There are no specific regulations
governing lead based paint in non-residential areas. Our basic approach
is to do everything that is required of non-military sites.
reuse
Question. How do you establish priorities for cleaning up BRAC
installations?
Answer. Our first priority is always to immediately address any
contamination that poses an imminent health and safety threat. These
are rare situations.
Unless there is an imminent health risk, cleanup priorities are
developed by the base cleanup team at each base. The BCT is comprised
of remedial project managers from the DON, and State and EPA
regulators. The BCT's work closely with the local redevelopment
authorities to establish mutually agreeable cleanup standards, cleanup
remedies, and time lines. The Restoration Advisory Board, which serves
as a community sounding board for cleanup issues, also plays an
important role. These cleanup plans are then reviewed by various
elements of the chain of command for technical merit and affordability.
Question. What major impediments do you face in turning over
properties to civilian use or other Federal agencies?
Answer. There is, of course, a standard screening and
prioritization process that we must follow. Other challenges include:
(1) the establishment of an official local redevelopment authority, and
the development and approval process for a reuse plan; (2) preparation
of necessary NEPA documents that address the reuse plan and potential
environmental impacts; and (3) doing the cleanup in a timely, cost-
effective manner that protects human health and the environment.
Question. When you are unable to turn properties over to local
reuse authorities, do you still incur costs in maintaining the base?
Answer. Yes, we incur caretaker costs for minimal maintenance
functions, police and fire protection, utilities, etc. We attempt to
minimize these costs by encouraging leases and leases in furtherance of
conveyance as a means of generating revenue, and negotiating the shift
of caretaker functions to the local redevelopment authority as part of
the property transition process.
expiration of brac--post-2001
Question. I understand that each of the services was instructed to
include their post-2001 BRAC requirements in their operation and
maintenance account. Do you have concerns with the merging of active
and BRAC cleanup costs?
Answer. Defense Planning Guidance directed the services to program
BRAC cleanup costs after fiscal year 2001 in their respective
environmental restoration accounts (used to fund cleanup at non-BRAC
bases), not their O&M accounts. This decision was reached based after
DOD and the components evaluated several competing alternatives. We can
establish sufficient management controls within the environmental
restoration accounts of the components to ensure visibility of funding
for cleanup at both BRAC and non-BRAC bases.
I might also add that this decision was made prior to SECDEF
announcing legislation for two more rounds of BRAC, the first in 2001
and the second in 2005. If this legislation is approved, we should
perhaps reconsider extending BRAC cleanup funds from prior rounds to
the new rounds.
Question. The BRAC accounts have been protected since the inception
of this process. If these environmental costs are not fully funded in
O&M, will your service lose faith with the local communities interested
in reuse?
Answer. Absolutely. We are told time and again by the local
redevelopment authorities, mayors at BRAC locations, and other local/
State representatives of the importance in continuing our cleanup
efforts. They often view this as one of the most important ingredients
in their reuse plans.
Question. What kind of visibility will you have if the ongoing BRAC
costs roll to operation and maintenance?
Answer. We will establish budget sub-accounts and accounting
practices to maintain proper visibility of funds in the event that BRAC
costs remain in the component environmental restoration accounts (not
O&M accounts).
Question. Would it be advantageous to keep the BRAC accounts
separate from the service's operation and maintenance accounts?
Answer. It is certainly advantageous to keep the BRAC accounts
separate from the service O&M accounts. There are, however, pros and
cons for continuing cleanup in the component environmental restoration
accounts, or extending the BRAC accounts beyond 2001, particularly if
legislation is approved to do two more rounds of BRAC.
In any case, current BRAC statutes require all BRAC cleanup to be
funded from the BRAC account. This legislation must be reviewed and
amended after current authority expires in 2001.
Question. With four rounds of BRAC behind us now, how do you track
the savings for each closure or realignment:
Answer. Projected BRAC savings are recorded in the annual budget
submission of the Department of the Navy. Savings identified in the
budget submission reflect the best estimates we have to date.
Question. What is your methodology for updating these savings
estimates?
Answer. Projected savings are calculated based on estimated
personnel savings to be derived from the closure or realignment action,
cost avoidance for base operating costs, and the cancellation of
planned construction and procurements resulting from closure or
realignments. Those projected savings are then calculated against the
projected costs for the closure or realignment actions and result in
net savings. Claimants are required to update savings estimates with
each budget submission.
Question. What assurance can you give us that future rounds of BRAC
would, in fact, save the amount that is forecasted?
Answer. With each successive round of BRAC, we have applied our
latest knowledge and experience. As a result, our estimates reflect the
most up to date experience. Various audits to date assure us that these
estimates are consistent with reality.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
Question. It is my understanding that community involvement and
public trust in the cleanup process is essential to ensuring the
success of your cleanup efforts. Could you comment on the RAB's
(Restoration Advisory Boards) and how they are working for the services
in this process? Once a project is underway, will the RAB's continue to
guide and oversee the ongoing protection of human health and the
environment after operational closure of an installation and transfer
of property?
Answer. The RAB is an advisory body designed to act as a focal
point for the exchange of information between the base and the local
community regarding restoration activities. The RAB is intended to
bring together community members who reflect the diverse interests
within the local community, enabling the early and continued two-way
flow of information, concerns, values, and needs between the affected
community and the installation. The RAB continues to oversee
environmental restoration at the affected base until cleanup is
complete, regardless of the operational or disposal status.
Question. A key element of the DOD's fast-track cleanup approach is
the establishment of BRAC cleanup teams to manage cleanup at closing
and realigning bases. Could you tell the Committee a little more about
the composition of the cleanup teams, and what their function is? Is
there emphasis put on the needs of the specific community and is that
amply represented on these teams?
Answer. BRAC Cleanup requirements, plans, and schedules are
prepared by a BRAC cleanup team (BCT) at each BRAC base. The BTC is
comprised of remedial managers from the Department of the Navy, State,
and EPA who collectively oversee and prioritize the necessary cleanups.
With the help of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command and its field
divisions, each base tailors its environmental cleanup plans to best
support the disposal strategy for the base. Our objective is to
complete the cleanup (attain ``response complete'' or ``remedy in
place'' status) for each parcel of land in the order that the Local
Redevelopment Authority (LRA) has determined it is needed for actual
redevelopment, and then immediately convey the property. Each cleanup
plan is based on cleanup standards established cooperatively between
the BCT members and the LRA for the base. As such, the community needs
are amply represented.
Question. I understand that the Defense Environmental Response Task
Force drafted a resolution that was adopted last year recognizing the
importance of State participation in cleanup activities and the
increase in public trust that results from broad and effective
collaboration between States and DOD. Has this attitude been embraced
by the services?
Answer. The Navy has been the most active service in partnering
with the States. The Navy has a variety of formal and informal
partnering processes in place. The following two examples are
illustrative. on the West Coast, the Navy has formed an Environmental
Management Executive Committee (EMEC) with five States. The EMEC
jointly plans and prioritizes remedial activities and discusses issues
of mutual interest. In EPA region IV, the Navy, Air Force, EPA region
IV and several States have developed a partnership with installation
level and management level tiers. The Navy has also been proactive in
bringing State and EPA regulators into the DOD budget process. Most
recently, the Navy produced a ``DOD guide to the environmental security
budget'' in cooperation with the Environmental Council of States.
Question. In the post-2001 period, separate BRAC environmental
funding will end and the continuing funding requirements will be merged
into the operations and maintenance accounts. Have you determined what
the impacts will be on readiness of this merging of accounts? Have you
decided to attempt to extend the present system of separate accounts,
and how likely is it that DOD will extend that system?
Answer. Merging BRAC requirements into the operations and
maintenance accounts will not impact readiness unless Congress does not
take this increased requirement into account. Navy has already planned
to carry continuing BRAC costs in these accounts. If the DOD BRAC
account expires we will establish separate sub-accounts to keep
visibility on these BRAC costs.
______
Questions Submitted to Deputy Assistant Secretary Paul W. Johnson
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
brac environmental costs
Question. How much money will you have spent by the year 2001 to
cleanup the bases from the first four rounds of base closure?
Answer. The Army has programmed to spend a total of $2.051 billion
on environmental restoration at BRAC installations through fiscal year
2001.
Question. The costs of environmental cleanup will extend beyond the
statutory limit for base closure expenditures. What kind of
environmental activities will continue and for how long? How much do
you anticipate that these long-term procedures will cost?
Answer. The Army will have some amounts of environmental
restoration and compliance work remaining after fiscal year 2001.
However, the majority of the efforts remaining after fiscal year 2001
are for long-term monitoring and operations. The Army has programmed a
total of $450 million for these activities for fiscal years 2002-2005.
Question. What steps are you taking to reduce the overall costs of
long-term environmental monitoring?
Answer. Due to the lengthy monitoring times and substantial cost,
the Army is developing a strategy to try to gain efficiencies in the
long-term operations and monitoring area. The study and subsequent
guidance will consist of intensified reviews of past decisions,
redirection of our remaining cleanup decisions away from remedies with
expensive long-term operations, more efficient contracting of long-term
monitoring, and use of new technologies.
Additionally the Army's Peer Review, which is an independent review
initiative, will also, we believe, find efficiencies within our cleanup
remedies such that long-term operations and monitoring will decrease.
brac environmental costs
Question. Do we have technology available to effectively clean-up
groundwater contamination and unexploded ordinance?
Answer.
Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)
Yes, but methods are extremely costly, time-consuming, and have
adverse impact to existing flora and fauna. In fact, ecological
considerations sometimes preclude extensive or robust cleanups. The
current method involves use of a magnetometer to locate and flag
metallic anomalies. Then we must manually excavate and detonate, or
detonate the UXO in place as the situation dictates. We are currently
evaluating and testing infrared technologies in conjunction with
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to improve detection
capabilities and potentially save time and excavation dollars.
Groundwater
The difficulty with treating groundwater is achieving long-term
cleanup contaminant levels by the pump and treatment technology. Pump
and treat, while initially effective, is only poorly to moderately
effective in achieving long-term cleanup goals. It is very dependent on
type of contamination and type of geology. We are working to restrict
pump and treat to only the most favorable geology/contaminants. An
alternative solution involves monitored natural attenuation and
restrictions on use of groundwater, where applicable/feasible, and
compatible with intended reuse.
Question. What are the major cost drivers with respect to cleaning
up BRAC installations?
Answer. Groundwater contamination and unexploded ordinance along
with the general complexity of the restoration process are driving the
cost of this program. Reaching agreement on the restoration remedies
with the regulators has caused program delays and increased costs. In
some cases local reuse authorities urge the Army to clean to more
unrestrictive standards than current uses of the property which
requires additional restoration efforts.
Question. To what degree do Federal and local regulators dictate
the plan and pace of the environmental clean up at BRAC sites?
Answer. The regulators play a crucial role in our plan and the pace
of cleanup. The BRAC Cleanup Teams (BCT), which include an EPA and
State regulator, comprise a decision-making partnership with the
regulators. Under E.O. 12580 we are still the ``lead'' in determining
or selecting the remedy, but look for concurrence from the regulators.
Most delays are due to disagreement with the regulators on cleanup
goals. At NPL installations we must have concurrence from EPA on the
chosen cleanup remedy, and EPA can select the final remedy if there is
a dispute.
program challenges
Question. What is your most significant challenge to completing the
environmental cleanup on the BRAC installations?
Answer. Reaching agreement and consensus with the regulators and
communities on cleanup goals and remedies that support the proposed
reuse of the property and is a cost-effective solution is generally our
biggest challenge. In the case of UXO cleanups, the problem is
generally balancing community reuse plans with cost of removal,
technical feasibility, and ecological concerns.
Question. How are you cleaning up ranges with unexploded ordinance?
Answer. Personnel walk the site with hand-held magnetometers and
flag magnetic anomalies. Other personnel excavate each anomaly. If the
anomaly is UXO, remove if possible and detonate elsewhere. If unable to
remove safely, detonate the UXO in place. Improvements to the process
under consideration are radio-controlled vehicle-mounted magnetometers,
and instrument methods of identifying magnetic anomalies as non-UXO
without excavation.
Question. What is the status of efforts to turn over facilities
with lead-based paint? What is the DOD position on this issue?
Answer. The Army is continuing to lease and transfer properties
that contain lead-based paint by following the requirements of the
Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X).
The process requires notification, inspection and/or abatement of the
lead based paint in residential structures. While we have not received
full agreement from the regulators on our Finding of Suitability to
Transfer (FOST's) we have been able to proceed with transfer of the
property. DOD is currently working with EPA to establish a National
policy.
reuse
Question. How do you establish priorities for cleaning up BRAC
installations?
Answer. The Army places highest priority on requirements driven by
imminent reuse of the affected property. Other reuse driven
requirements and continuation of ongoing programs are the next
priorities. The Army next prioritizes projects required to support
Federal Facilities Agreements, RCRA consent orders, and any other
legally driven requirements. Any remaining funding is distributed based
on relative risk evaluation. Throughout this process the Army is
protective of human health and the environment and we immediately fund
any imminent threats.
Question. What major impediments do you face in turning over
properties to civilian use or other Federal agencies?
Answer. The major impediment to turning over properties to civilian
use is determination of future use and obtaining cleanup level
consensus with the regulators. Sometimes the regulators want us to
clean to standards above what is being dictated by the intended use and
in other cases the intended use is unknown or undetermined when cleanup
decisions are being made. We are experiencing similar problems with
turning over property to other Federal agencies. In some cases transfer
to another Federal agency has proven even more difficult, i.e. Presidio
of San Francisco and Woodbridge Research Facility. Property that is
staying within the realm of the United States government does not
trigger the requirements of CERCLA 120(h) prior to transfer. However,
Federal agencies are usually not willing to take property unless all
cleanup has been completed, regardless of the planned reuse.
Question. When you are unable to turn properties over to local
reuse authorities, do you still incur costs in maintaining the base?
Answer. Yes. The Army incurs caretaker costs from the time the base
closes until the property is disposed.
expiration of brac (post-2001)
Question. I understand that each of the services was instructed to
include their post-2001 BRAC requirements in their O&M account. Do you
have concerns with the merging of active and BRAC cleanup costs?
Answer. Yes, we do have concerns with the merging of Active and
BRAC program cleanup costs. We see the need to maintain separate
accounting of these programs. The goals and objectives are different in
these two programs; BRAC being reuse driven and Active sites being to
reduce the relative risk of contaminated sites.
Question. The BRAC accounts have been protected since the inception
of this process. If these environmental costs are not fully funded in
O&M, will your service lose faith with the local communities interested
in reuse?
Answer. The Army has programmed $450 million after fiscal year 2001
which is based on our current requirements projections. This is the
level of spending that we believe will support reuse and allow us to
dispose of most of the BRAC properties. Less funding will begin to
delay cleanup actions and property disposal, which could adversely
impact the local communities and result in unmet expectations.
Question. What kind of visibility will you have if the ongoing BRAC
costs roll to operation and maintenance?
Answer. The Army has reserved the funds programmed after fiscal
year 2001 in a separate programming package exclusive to environmental
restoration at BRAC installations. During execution, the Army could
establish a separate program element to capture these costs in the
finance and accounting system.
Question. Would it be advantageous to keep the BRAC accounts
separate from the service's operation and maintenance accounts?
Answer. Yes. Consequently, the Army supports the concept of
extending the life of the BRAC account to authorize appropriations for
BRAC environmental restoration after fiscal year 2001.
additional rounds of base closure
Question. With four rounds of BRAC behind us now, how do you track
the savings for each closure or realignment?
Answer. The Army makes an extensive effort to determine and
validate BRAC savings at the time that each round is announced by the
Commission. Our implementing Major Commands (MACOM's) develop BRAC
implementation plans which include detailed financial cost and savings
analyses. These estimates are reviewed, audited as required, and
submitted to the Congress as the budget justification books.
Question. What is your methodology for updating these savings
estimates?
Answer. The Army reviews the savings estimates annually as part of
the budget development process, and revises the numbers as necessary.
Beginning in 1996 the Army reemphasized the need to review savings
estimates, and initiated an audit of savings on 10 major BRAC 95
packages. These efforts resulted in revisions in the savings estimates
in the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 budget justification
books.
Question. What assurance can you give us that future rounds of BRAC
would, in fact, save the amount that is forecasted?
Answer. The Army can not provide installation specific data as to
where we will achieve future BRAC savings. We have completed notional
analysis of future infrastructure requirements which did indicate that
additional closure actions are required and that savings would result.
The Army will achieve annual recurring savings approaching $1 billion
upon full implementation of the first four BRAC rounds. The scope of
any future BRAC rounds will determine the level of savings. Although we
expect savings from future rounds to be generally less than closures to
date, we know that substantial savings remain to be achieved.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
questions for the record
Question. It is my understanding that community involvement and
public trust in the cleanup process is essential to ensuring the
success of your clean-up efforts. Could you comment on the RAB's
(Restoration Advisory Boards) and how they are working for the Services
in this process? Once a project is underway, will the RAB's continue to
guide and oversee the ongoing protection of human health and the
environment after operational closure of an installation and transfer
of property?
Answer. For the most part, the Army believes that RAB's are very
effective in involving the local community in the cleanup of our
installations. RAB's will continue at Army installations until such
time as all remedial systems are in place and/or there is still
community interest in the on-going cleanup.
Question. A key element of the DOD's fast-track cleanup approach is
the establishment of BRAC cleanup teams to manage cleanup at closing
and realigning bases. Could you tell the Committee a little more about
the composition of the cleanup teams, and what their function is? Is
there emphasis put on the needs of the specific community and is that
amply represented on these teams?
Answer. Each BRAC Cleanup Team (BCT) consists of a service
representative who is the BRAC Environmental Coordinator (BEC) and an
environmental representative from the EPA and State. The BCT focuses on
ensuring that cleanup efforts are timely and protective of human health
and the environment while ensuring remedies support community reuse
needs.
Question. I understand that the defense environmental response task
force drafted a resolution that was adopted last year recognizing the
importance of State participation in cleanup activities and the
increase in public trust that results from broad and effective
collaboration between States and DOD. Has this attitude been embraced
by the Services?
Answer. Yes it has. A State environmental representative has always
been a member on the BRAC Cleanup Team (BCT). The State BCT member is
financed through the Department of Defense State Memorandum of
Agreement (DSMOA) which the Army believes to be an effective program to
ensure State involvement in our cleanup program.
Question. In the post-2001 period, separate BRAC environmental
funding will end and the continuing funding requirements will be merged
into the Operations and Maintenance accounts. Have you determined what
the impacts will be on readiness of this merging of accounts? Have you
decided to attempt to extend the present system of separate accounts,
and how likely is it that DOD will extend that system?
Answer. The Army has reserved the O&M funds programmed after fiscal
year 2001 in a separate package exclusive to environmental restoration
at BRAC installations. We expect this to negate any impact on readiness
accounts. In execution the Army could establish a separate program
element to capture these costs in the finance and accounting system.
______
Questions Submitted to Deputy Assistant Secretary Jimmy G. Dishner
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
environmental costs
Question. How much money will you have spent by the year 2001 to
clean up the bases from the first four rounds of base closure?
Answer. We estimate that by the end of fiscal year 2001 we will
have spent approximately 2 billion dollars.
Question. The costs of environmental cleanup will extend beyond the
statutory limit for base closure expenditures. What kind of
environmental activities will continue and for how long? How much do
you anticipate that these long-term procedures will cost?
Answer. We anticipate the cost for environmental cleanup,
operations and monitoring of Air Force BRAC locations after fiscal year
2001 will be approximately $1.3B through final closeout action at
Mather AFB (estimated in 2069). Most of the cleanup costs in that
amount are for McClellan AFB. The long-term costs (through 2069)
associated with completing the cleanup include: Operations of Cleanup
Systems, Treatment, Equipment Replacement/Modifications, Sampling/
Analysis, Long-Term Monitoring of contaminated groundwater, Landfill
Cap Maintenance, Institutional Control Monitoring, On-Going Community
Involvement activities, Decommissioning of Cleanup Systems and Wells,
Regulatory Reporting, and Performance Reviews.
Question. What steps are you taking to reduce the overall costs of
long-term environmental monitoring?
Answer. We are taking the following steps to reduce Long-Term
Monitoring: Utilization of optimization technique, use of innovative
technology, peer reviews, technical assistance visits, partnering with
regulators, and reaching consensus on site closeout process/procedures/
requirements with regulators.
Question. Do we have technology available to effectively clean-up
groundwater contamination and unexploded ordinance?
Answer. Ground water cleanup technology is available, however, it
is expensive and time intensive to achieve cleanup standards.
Unexploded ordinance (UXO) cleanup has been successfully accomplished;
however, it can be very expensive. We need to exploit new technology on
UXO cleanup.
Question. What are the major cost drivers with respect to cleaning
up BRAC installations?
Answer. The major cost drivers are associated with groundwater
treatment and strict regulatory requirements.
Question. To what degree do Federal and local regulators dictate
the plan and pace of the environmental clean up at BRAC sites?
Answer. Regulatory concurrence on clean up decisions and
documentation is required by statute, policy, and/or Federal Facility
Agreements. The cleanup process requires compliance with Federal,
State, and local regulations. State and local regulations vary and are
only applicable if they are more stringent. Through partnering, and
dispute resolution, the Air Force and the regulatory community resolve
cleanup issues. Federal and local regulators often dictate the plan and
degree of cleanup. DOD, through the annual congressional appropriations
process, controls the pace of cleanup. Various efforts to waive Federal
sovereign immunity would upset this delicate balance, possibly leading
to State control of scope and pace of cleanups.
program challenges
Question. What is your most significant challenge to completing the
environmental cleanup on the BRAC Installations?
Answer. Our most significant challenge is achieving cleanup of
contaminated groundwater. The available technologies are expensive and
are slow to achieve our cleanup standards. In addition, this is
compounded by the applicability of varying State and local cleanup
standards.
Question. How are you cleaning up ranges with unexploded ordinance?
Answer. To date we have not identified any BRAC unexploded
ordinance requirements. The majority of this cleanup in the Air Force
is accomplished by the active Environmental Restoration Account in
accordance with Air Force policy. BRAC facilities have cleanup
responsibility for small arms ranges associated with BRAC
installations.
Question. What is the status of efforts to turn over facilities
with lead-based paint? What is the DOD position of this issue?
Answer. The Air Force complies with Title X for residential
property. The purpose of Title X is to reduce the threat of childhood
lead poisoning in housing owned, assisted or transferred by the Federal
Government. As required by law, the Air Force discloses the presence of
any known lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazard in the sale or
lease documents of any target housing constructed prior to 1978. In
addition, the Air Force requires the grantee to abate lead-based paint
hazards in pre-1960 housing if it will be used for residential
purposes. We are working jointly with DOD & EPA to establish policies
on non-residential properties.
reuse
Question. How do you establish priorities for cleaning up BRAC
Installations?
Answer. Priorities are established based on protection of public
health and the environment, legal and reuse requirements.
Question. What major impediments do you face in turning over
properties to civilian use or other Federal agencies?
Answer. We have not faced major impediments in turning over
properties to civilian use or to other Federal agencies. We use long-
term leases and the early transfer authority to transfer property for
community reuse to overcome our potential impediments to deed property
to the communities while environmental cleanup is ongoing. The
communities ultimately need the deed to the property, however,
regulatory cleanup requirements sometimes involve a lengthy process.
Question. When you are unable to turn properties over to local
reuse authorities, do you still incur costs in maintaining the base?
Answer. Yes, we incur costs; however through interim and long-term
leases we are still able to allow reuse of the property and minimize
costs associated with maintaining the base.
expiration of brac post-2001
Question. I understand that each of the services was instructed to
include their post-2001 BRAC requirements in their Operation and
Maintenance account. Do you have concerns with the merging of active
and BRAC cleanup costs?
Answer. Currently, the Defense Planning Guidance and the POM
Preparation Instructions direct post-2001 BRAC requirements be included
in the appropriate account. However, we would prefer to continue with
the BRAC account. It maintains exclusivity and high visibility for the
BRAC cleanup dollars.
Question. The BRAC accounts have been protected since the inception
of this process. If these environmental costs are not fully funded in
O&M, will your service lose faith with the local communities interested
in reuse?
Answer. The regulators and reuse community already express concerns
about DOD commitment to complete the cleanup. Additionally, we will
experience compliance problems resulting from missed milestones in FFA
schedules and other legal commitments if requirements are not fully
funded in the proper account (Operation and Maintenance for
environmental compliance; Environmental Restoration-Air Force, for
cleanup requirements). All will affect the reuse abilities of our local
communities.
Question. What kind of visibility will you have if the ongoing BRAC
costs roll to Operation and Maintenance?
Answer. If BRAC costs roll to Operation and Maintenance they would
lose their current exclusiveness and high visibility that is critical
to facilitating reuse. In addition, the BRAC account is currently a no
year account; this provides the necessary flexibility for meeting our
commitments to the communities for cleanup and reuse.
Question. Would it be advantageous to keep the BRAC accounts
separate from the service's Operation and Maintenance accounts?
Answer. Yes. It will ensure funding for these must pay requirements
do not lose visibility.
additional rounds of base closure
Question. With four rounds of BRAC behind us now, how do you track
the savings for each closure or realignment?
Answer. Savings are best estimates. By their very nature, estimates
of savings are subject to some uncertainty. However, once the estimates
were made, the estimated amount was removed from the Air Force budget.
No audit trail, single document, or budget account exists for tracing
the end use of each dollar saved through BRAC. The Department is
committed to improving its estimates of costs and savings in future
BRAC rounds.
Question. What is your methodology for updating these savings
estimates?
Answer. The gross savings estimates have not been changed from the
amount initially identified and removed from the total Air Force
budget. Net savings are updated annually as the projected costs for
requirements are revalidated and refined.
Question. What assurance can you give us that future rounds of BRAC
would, in fact, save the amount that is forecasted?
Answer. In future rounds of BRAC, we will concentrate on retaining
historical financial records, reconciling costs for workload increases
at receiving bases and BRAC-related personnel changes, and improving
reporting on savings. Specifically, a questionnaire will be developed
and completed annually for each base affected by future BRAC rounds. As
envisioned, the questionnaire will more accurately track savings during
the six-year implementation period. While these initiatives will
improve the accounting for savings, the volume of decisions made
through Congressional budgeting process will continue to affect the
savings estimates and complicate the accounting for these savings.
However, audits of the savings estimates from the previous rounds
indicate that the forecasts were correct.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
restoration advisory boards
Question. It is my understanding that community involvement and
public trust in the cleanup process is essential to ensuring the
success of your clean-up efforts. Could you comment on the RAB's
(restoration advisory boards) and how they are working for the Services
in this process?
Answer. In the Air Force, RAB's have served a twofold purpose. As a
conduit of information between DOD and the community, RAB's have been
pivotal to community acceptance of environmental restoration decisions
at closing and realigning installations. Secondly, RAB's have provided
valuable input into cleanup plans and documents which are the
foundation for cleanup decisions. This relationship exists to fulfill
not only the spirit and the statutory goals of CERCLA and RCRA, but
also ensure that the community remains involved as we finish the job of
cleaning up our installations.
Question. Once a project is underway, will the RAB's continue to
guide and oversee the ongoing protection of human health and the
environment after operational closure of an installation and transfer
of property?
Answer. While RAB's provide input into the environmental
restoration decision making process in their advisory role as DOD/
community liaison, responsibility for ensuring ongoing protection of
human health and the environment at cleanup sites will continue to rest
with the Air Force. As closing/realigning installations approach the
last phases of the Installation Restoration Program and move toward
closeout of environmental sites and installations, RAB's have the
option to remain intact, to meet less frequently or to adjourn.
Question. Mr. Dishner, in your testimony you discussed a new
technical assistance for public participation program. Could you tell
the Committee a little more about this and how it will assist the
RAB's?
Answer. TAPP is a new community involvement tool available to all
interested RAB's who demonstrate a need for assistance in understanding
and interpreting the technical aspects of DOD's environmental
restoration program. RAB's may utilize the program if other sources are
not available and the technical assistance is likely to contribute to
the efficiency and effectiveness of the environmental restoration
program and to community acceptance. TAPP was created in response to
RAB's request for help in better understanding the highly technical
material they were being asked to advise on and in developing
confidence in the input they were providing BRAC Cleanup Teams, leading
to faster, cost-effective cleanups consistent with the President's
Five-Part Plan.
cleanup teams
Question. A key element of the DOD's fast-track cleanup approach is
the establishment of BRAC cleanup teams to manage cleanup at closing
and realigning bases. Could you tell the committee a little more about
the composition of the cleanup teams, and what their function is? Is
there emphasis put on the needs of the specific community and is that
amply represented on theses teams?
Answer. The BRAC cleanup teams are comprised of an Air Force
employee (BRAC environmental coordinator), a representative from the
State environmental regulatory agency, and a representative from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regional office. Their function is
to identify opportunities for acceleration and to expedite conveyance
of property. The BRAC cleanup team seeks early dialogues with and
encourages participation of the Restoration Advisory Board and the
Local Reuse Authority.
state participation cleanup activities
Question. I understand that the defense environmental response task
force drafted a resolution that was adopted last year recognizing the
importance of State participation in cleanup activities and the
increase in public trust that results from broad and effective
collaboration between States and DOD. Has this attitude been embraced
by the Services?
Answer. Through our BRAC cleanup teams and partnering initiatives
we emphasize and embrace the importance of State participation in
cleanup activities. This collaboration proves effective in achieving
public trust as well as accelerating cleanup and transfer of property.
brac environmental funding
Question. In the post-2001 period, separate BRAC environmental
funding will end and the continuing funding requirements will be merged
into the Operations and Maintenance accounts. Have you determined what
the impacts will be on readiness of this merging of accounts? Have you
decided to attempt to extend the present system of separate accounts,
and how likely is it that DOD will extend that system?
Answer. Merging of the accounts would not have a direct impact on
readiness. We would prefer to continue the BRAC account as in the past
to ensure the exclusivity and high visibility within the community and
maintain regulatory trust in our commitment to complete cleanup. A
separate account would continue to provide the flexibility needed to
forestall compliance problems and facilitate economic reuse of the
property. Absent congressional action to continue the BRAC account, the
DOD Defense Planning Guidance instructs the services to program their
BRAC requirements into the appropriate O&M account beyond fiscal year
2001. For environmental compliance related issues, the O&M account
would be appropriate. For environmental cleanup issues, the
Environmental Restoration-Air Force account, would be appropriate.
conclusion of hearings
Senator Burns. If there is anything we can do from the
committee standpoint to help you facilitate your work we stand
ready to do that, and we appreciate your coming today.
The subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., Tuesday, May 12, 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 of Resources, Planning,
and Performance Directorate, Defense Logistics Support Command,
Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Defense................ 39
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Becraft, Carolyn H., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Personnel Support, Families and Education), Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness),
Department of Defense.......................................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana, questions
submitted by.................31, 55, 81, 105, 106, 107, 137, 141, 144
Carrato, Rear Adm. Tom, Chief Operating Officer, TRICARE
Management Activity, Department of Defense..................... 39
Clem, Brig. Gen. Ralph S., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.... 87
Questions submitted to....................................... 107
Coleman, Hon. Rodney A., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations and Environment,
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense............. 87
Prepared statement........................................... 90
Questions submitted to.....................................105, 106
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho, prepared
statements.....................................................3, 111
Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Installations), Department of the Air Force, Department of
Defense........................................................ 125
Prepared statement........................................... 126
Questions submitted to....................................... 144
Faircloth, Hon. Lauch, U.S. Senator from North Carolina:
Prepared statement...........................................3, 110
Questions submitted by....................................... 83
Hayes, Brig. Gen. James M., Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for
Installations and Logistics [Facilities], Headquarters Marine
Corps, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense........... 57
Heckman, Brig. Gen. Gary W., Director, Center for Command
Support, U.S. Special Operations Command, Department of Defense 39
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Helmly, Brig. Gen. James R., Deputy Chief, Army Reserve,
Department of the Army, Department of Defense.................. 1
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, questions
submitted by................................................... 36
Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Installations and Housing), Office of Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Installations, Logistics and Environment), Department
of the Army, Department of Defense.............................1, 119
Prepared statement........................................... 120
Questions submitted to....................................... 141
Lupia, Maj. Gen. Eugene A., USAF, Civil Engineer, Deputy Chief of
Staff for Installations and Logistics, Department of the Air
Force, Department of Defense................................... 87
Moore, Alma B., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Installation, Logistics, and Environment), Department of the
Army, Department of Defense.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington:
Prepared statements.........................................29, 110
Questions submitted by........................33, 56, 140, 143, 146
Nash, Rear Adm. David J., Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense......... 57
Pirie, Hon. Robert B., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Installations and Environment, Department of the Navy,
Department of Defense.........................................57, 109
Prepared statement..........................................61, 112
Questions submitted to....................................... 137
Squier, Brig. Gen. Michael J., Deputy Director, Army National
Guard, Department of the Army, Department of Defense........... 1
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, questions submitted
by........................................................32, 85, 106
Tabler, Diana, Deputy Executive Director, TRICARE Management
Activity, Department of Defense, prepared statement............ 51
Totushek, Rear Adm. John B., Deputy Chief, Naval Reserve,
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.................. 57
Weaver, Maj. Gen. Paul A., USAF, Director, Air National Guard,
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense............. 87
Questions submitted to....................................... 106
Whaley, Maj. Gen. David A., Assistant Chief of Staff for
Installation Management, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense........................................................ 1
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Agencies
Defense Logistics Agency
Page
DLA environmental compliance..................................... 54
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)
Department of Defense education activity [DODEA] construction.... 53
Quality of life.................................................. 40
TRICARE Management Activity
Program highlights............................................... 50
U.S. Special Operations Command
SOCOM future requirements........................................ 53
Department of the Air Force
Air Force ordnance disposal...................................... 133
Base environmental assessment.................................... 129
Base realignment and closure..................................... 103
Bidding process, contractor competitive.......................... 136
BRAC residual funds.............................................. 134
C-17 deployment to McChord AFB................................... 101
Castle AFB cleanup status........................................ 135
Contractor selection............................................. 132
Dormitories...................................................... 98
Family housing................................................... 99
Housing program.................................................. 97
Reserve component funding........................................ 100
Retention programs............................................... 102
South Pole trip.................................................. 97
Department of the Army
Advanced appropriations.......................................... 29
Barracks......................................................... 23
BRAC............................................................. 29
Capital venture initiative....................................... 25
Chemical demilitarization........................................ 27
Environmental cleanup............................................ 26
Milcon funding, Army National Guard.............................. 27
One plus one..................................................... 23
Quality of life.................................................. 24
Requirements, priority of........................................ 28
Department of the Navy
Acoustical Research Detachment Center............................ 79
Authorization bill supported appropriation adds, last year's..... 58
BRAC cleanup..................................................... 73
Cecil Field environmental impact statement....................... 75
Demolition....................................................... 74
Guard and reserves............................................... 59
Housing..........................................................72, 74
Marine Corps facilities.......................................... 79
NAS Oceana construction.......................................... 76
Navy budget reflects priorities.................................. 60
-