[Senate Hearing 106-273]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-273
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2465/S. 1205
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
0Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-227 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
ISBN 0-16-059975-X
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 FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYLE, Arizona
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
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho HARRY REID, Nevada
JON KYL, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio) ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Sid Ashworth
Christina Evans (Minority)
Administrative Support
Mazie R. Mattson
Emelie East (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 16, 1999
Department of Defense:
Department of the Navy....................................... 1
Defense agencies:
U.S. Special Operations Command.......................... 39
TRICARE Management Activity.............................. 39
Defense Logistics Agency................................. 39
Personnel Support, Families and Education................ 39
Tuesday, March 23, 1999
Department of Defense:
Department of the Army....................................... 71
Department of the Air Force.................................. 113
Wednesday, July 14, 1999
Department of Defense: Forward Operation Locations (FOL) for
Counterdrug Operations......................................... 133
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Stevens, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. PIRIE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
ACCOMPANIED BY:
REAR ADM. LOUIS M. SMITH, COMMANDER, NAVAL FACILITIES
ENGINEERING COMMAND
MAJ. GEN. GEOFFREY B. HIGGINBOTHAM, USMC, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
FOR INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS, HEADQUARTERS MARINE CORPS
REAR ADM. JOHN B. TOTUSHEK, CHIEF OF NAVAL RESERVE
opening statement of conrad burns
Senator Burns. We will call the committee to order this
morning.
Thank you to the panel, we appreciate your delaying here
just a little bit. We are going to talk about military
construction and how it affects the United States Navy and the
United States Marine Corps. First we will hear from the Navy.
Secretary Pirie, it is nice to have you back again. I
appreciate our working relationship, it has been very good, and
I appreciate the efforts you have put into it. We hope that we
can do some good things for our people in uniform. This is
probably the fifth or sixth time you have been before this
committee since I have been here. You are probably getting
tired by now. But we appreciate your efforts.
I have some concerns--and my statement will be very, very
short--the way the Department of Defense is starting to deal
with the military construction budget. I am very concerned
about it. Incremental funding has risen. Some concerns have
come up, that maybe that will slow our execution and what our
mission is and what the eventual bottom-line cost to the
taxpayers at the end of those projects will be. Also, it
appears to me that we are assuming some risk that would not
necessarily have to assume.
Senior defense officials have told me that one-time-only
funding technique advance appropriations of all projects.
However, the same fiscal challenges that the Department faced
putting together the fiscal year 2000 budget will still be
there for years to come. We still have got a big challenge
ahead of us. The danger will be that we begin not to fully fund
military construction up front, but spread those costs over 2,
3, and as many as 5 years.
I tend to oppose incremental funding, and believe it is a
wrong way that the Department should proceed. I think it will
strike a major blow to revitalizing our aging infrastructure
and improving the quality of life of our members that are in
uniform, and their families. I can assure you that we will
approach this situation with a great deal of care and
consideration and with the cooperation of, Mr. Secretary, you
and your staff that we have always enjoyed before. I think we
can be very candid and very frank with one another on what your
opinions are on this and how we should proceed and how we
should work together on it, to make sure that the risk to the
taxpayer and the total cost, bottom line, is taken into
consideration before we go into such an action.
The Navy has 12 bachelor quarters projects in its budget.
The Marine Corps has three such projects, and that is a good
start. We look forward to working with you, of course, on these
critical requirements, because we are also very much aware of
retention in our military. Where I see our biggest problem, or
our biggest challenge, ahead of us, is that we are not building
Non-Commissioned Officers (NCO's) like we did. NCO's are
getting out of the service, and we need those people.
I want to relate to you a story. We met with some Air Force
people in the Middle East. Two women, in particular, really got
my attention, one was a tech sergeant; one was a staff
sergeant, skilled people--radar technicians on AWACS. Very,
very important jobs, and they were going to separate themselves
from the Air Force. And that, after gaining those ranks and
obtaining those skills in very sensitive areas, concerns all of
us in the retention of good people. And I, coming from the
ranks of the enlisted, I am very concerned that we are not
building NCO's, people who are really the backbone of our
military.
So, Secretary Pirie, we will look forward to your statement
this morning. We will have some questions and discuss some of
the ongoing projects, and also what you see on the horizon as
far as how we tend to the quality of life, and also carry out
our mission of national defense. We welcome you here this
morning, and Admiral Smith, General Higginbotham, Admiral
Totushek.
I mentioned to Senator Biden at one time, I always thought
it was a great talent that when you get to the weakest part of
your argument you can elevate the volume on your speech, and
you may have to do that this morning.
So, thank you for coming this morning. We look forward to
your statement. If you want to capsulize that, that is fine.
Then we will have some questions.
statement of robert b. pirie
Mr. Pirie. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, I
will submit my lengthy, formal statement for the record. And I
just have a few summary remarks, if I may.
Senator Burns. That is fine. Your full statement will be
made a part of the record.
Mr. Pirie. I am very pleased to be back here again, one
more time, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your extremely kind
remarks about our working relationship, which I think has been
terrific from our point of view, and I look forward to
continuing to get good things done together.
As you said, Major General Higginbotham, Deputy Chief of
Staff of the Marine Corps for Installations and Logistics, is
here, on my right. On my left is Admiral Louis Smith, who is
the Chief of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. And on
my extreme left is Admiral John Totushek, who is Chief of the
Naval Reserve.
Senator Burns. A good Irish name. His day is coming up, on
the 17th. [Laughter.]
navy budget overview
Mr. Pirie. As I said, I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to be
here to discuss the Department of the Navy's fiscal year 2000
budget for shore infrastructure and military construction. In
many ways, the budget we are presenting this year is better
than last year's. We project the backlog of maintenance and
repair to grow more slowly as a result of real property
maintenance and demolition programs. We have got a more robust
Military Construction (MILCON) proposal, with numerous piers,
compliance projects, and quality-of-life projects.
Our Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) request is down.
But that reflects the fact that we are coming to the end of
four rounds of BRAC.
On the whole, we think this year's budget is a good one,
and we hope that you will continue to support us as you have in
the past. I recognize the concern that the administration's
request for advanced appropriations may have caused. And I can
only refer to what has been said by Dr. Hamre and Mr. Lynn: It
is a one-time expedient to allow inclusion of high-priority
readiness and modernization programs. It was undesirable but
unavoidable. We expect to be able to execute the projects we
have requested without undue delay or expense.
With respect to the military family housing, the projects
for public/private ventures that we propose are not subject to
advance appropriations, and we expect to proceed with them in
due course. For fiscal year 2000, we anticipate five projects,
encompassing some 2,196 homes. And we currently have five other
projects which may affect over 15,000 homes, awaiting
resolutions of concern expressed by the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Military Construction. We hope to resolve the
questions that they have raised, and proceed with the projects
soon.
But I would like to underscore that our Public/Private
Ventures (PPV) program is not about saving money, it is not
about getting out of the housing business. It is about getting
better, more affordable housing for sailors and marines, and
getting it sooner than we could using past practices. The
committee has been very supportive of this in the past, and we
hope you will continue that support now that we are on the
point of making significant progress.
In the area of BRAC, we are, as I said, approaching the end
of the first four rounds, and we have closed 165 of 178
affected facilities. It is important to note that closure is
the point at which significant savings begin to accrue. We
still have major hurdles to clear in cleanup and conveyance of
the property. Cleanup is proceeding reasonably well, as you may
note by reference to the table on page 12 of my full testimony.
We have not delayed any phase of BRAC action because of
cleanup.
Conveyance is more problematical. In many cases,
communities are not willing or able to take title to the
property when we are ready to turn it over. We are pursuing an
aggressive policy of interim leasing in order to allow
productive reuse of the property while all of the myriad
details that go with conveyance are accommodated. But we would
prefer to hand over the property earlier rather than later in
the process. In this and other areas of base closure, we may be
able to improve over the first four rounds, but I believe we
should go forward now, as requested by the administration.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my 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 program.
My statement today will cover a number of areas: Shore
infrastructure challenges; The infrastructure budget in perspective;
Program highlights for family housing, military construction, and Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and Infrastructure efficiency efforts.
shore infrastructure challenges
Naval forces provide presence and project power around the world to
preserve American security through peacetime engagement and deterrence.
At any given time, more than 50,000 Sailors and Marines are deployed
around the world aboard 100 ships. The Navy-Marine Corps team responded
to a national tasking, on average, at least once every three weeks
during 1998. This is a five-fold increase from the days of the Cold
War.
I am certain that members of this Committee will agree that in many
respects, our shore infrastructure is the launch pad for the readiness
of our military forces. Piers provide berthing, electrical power, and
support facilities for ships in homeports. Runways support rapid
deployment and transit of people, material and supplies. Hangars
shelter valuable aircraft for maintenance and repair work. Training
facilities and ranges allow Sailors and Marines to learn and hone their
war fighting skills. Shipyards provide the industrial capability for
ship repairs. Maintenance and operations facilities make our ground
forces and their equipment combat capable. Laboratories transform
science into new fleet technologies. Military housing and community
facilities are the place our Sailors, Marines and their families call
home. All provide a critical ingredient in our ability to deploy Naval
forces when needed.
U. S. taxpayers have made a considerable investment in our shore
infrastructure. After BRAC is completed, the Navy will have over 88,000
facilities,\1\ 400 piers and wharves, and 180 runways with a plant
replacement value of $100 billion on 2.1 million acres of land. The
Marine Corps will have over 38,000 facilities, 10 piers and wharves,
and 50 runways with a plant replacement value of $25 billion on 1.6
million acres. As we fund current shore operations, we must consider
our stewardship responsibilities and invest in the maintenance and
repair of these facilities to preserve their use for the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A facility is a separate and individual building, structure, or
other real property improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, we face the twin challenges of needing to invest more in our
facilities, while at the same time needing to rid ourselves of excess
capacity. Most of our piers and wharves were built in the early 1940s
and 1950s. Fifty-seven percent of the pier space and 40 percent of the
wharf space is substandard \2\ or inadequate. Additionally, the Navy
and Marine Corps has over 32 million square yards of runway paving, 48
percent of which is substandard or inadequate. Our backlog of
maintenance and repair (BMAR) continues to grow. The Navy's critical
\3\ BMAR is currently $2.4 billion and increases to $2.9 billion in
fiscal year 2003 before stabilizing. The Marine Corps BMAR is currently
$689 million and stabilizes at $722 million in fiscal year 2003. The
family housing BMAR is currently $2.2 billion for the Navy and $1.3
billion for the Marine Corps. We are investing 1.8 percent of the Plant
Replacement Value (PRV) of our facilities, compared to a rate of two to
four percent recommended by a 1990 report of the National Research
Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Substandard means it is capable of supporting current use, but
requires repair or modification; inadequate cannot be economically made
adequate.
\3\ Environmental, safety, mission, and quality of life projects
that should not be deferred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite four rounds of base realignment and closure (BRAC), we
continue to have excess capacity. While the number of ships and Sailors
were reduced by 40 percent and 30 percent respectively since 1988 as a
result of BRAC, Navy shore infrastructure decreased by only 17 percent
of PRV.
I know this Committee understands how high quality shore facilities
bring out the best in our people. Our mutual goal is to provide quality
shore facilities to support the current and future readiness of U. S.
Naval forces. Let me describe the investment and efficiency solutions
we are pursuing. Where appropriate, I will use metrics to display where
we were at the end of fiscal year 1998, where we expect to be at the
end of fiscal year 2000 based on this budget submission, and what our
future goals are.
the infrastructure budget in perspective
Financing the Fiscal Year 2000 Construction Program
Before I explain our fiscal year 2000 budget request, I must first
describe two new financing techniques that the DOD has instituted for
the military construction accounts in fiscal year 2000. This change
affects virtually all construction projects \4\ in the Military
Construction, Navy: all projects in the Military Construction, Naval
and Marine Corps Reserve; all Family Housing, Navy construction and
improvements; \5\ and all BRAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The only exception is MILCON projects above $50 million that
are phased over several years.
\5\ Family Housing PPV projects in the DoD Family Housing
Improvements Fund (FHIF) are not affected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the fiscal year 2000 program requests authorization for the
full program amount, which is shown throughout this statement. However,
the fiscal year 2000 appropriation request is only for that portion
expected to be actually spent in fiscal year 2000, plus an additional
factor for unforeseen actions. The remainder of the construction
portion of the project is included in a request for Advance
Appropriations in fiscal year 2001.
Second, the fiscal year 2000 DON budget also annualizes the cost of
Supervision, Inspection and Overhead (SIOH) in military construction
projects to align budgeted costs with expenditure trends over five
years. The budget requests full authorization of SIOH, but
appropriation for only that portion to support work to be done in
fiscal year 2000.
The following table displays the effect of both the Advance
Appropriations and annualization of SIOH on our fiscal year 2000
program.
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less 2001- Equals
Fiscal Year Less Fiscal 2005 Less Other Fiscal Year
2000 Auth Year 2001 Annualized Changes 2000 Appn
Request Advance Appn SIOH Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCON...................................... $922.7 $496.6 $43.0 \6\ $63.3 $319.8
MCNR...................................... 15.6 10.0 0.7 ............ 4.9
FHCON..................................... 246.9 170.4 11.9 ............ 64.6
BRAC...................................... 452.6 254.7 ............ \7\ -13.5 211.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 1,637.8 931.7 55.6 49.8 600.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Includes $76.0 million for phase-funded projects, for which advance appropriations are not sought, less
$12.7 million completion of a project previously authorized.
\7\ This adjustment primarily reflects the transfer of $18.6 million for Homeowner's Assistance Program less $5
million in anticipated land sales revenue.
The use of Advance Appropriations and annualization of SIOH allows
financing of critical DON readiness programs in fiscal year 2000. For
example, Advance Appropriations was a one-time action that allowed the
DOD to realign $3.1 billion to readiness and personnel needs in fiscal
year 2000, while still initiating all planned construction projects
envisioned under normal funding conventions. However, this is not the
preferred method of financing the program, and DOD only intends to
utilize this method for the fiscal year 2000 program. If the fiscal
year 2000 Military Construction Appropriations Act provides the fiscal
year 2000 appropriations requested in the President's Budget including
the advance appropriations of funds for the fiscal year 2000 projects,
it would provide all the funds (except the outyear SIOH tail) needed to
complete the fiscal year 2000 projects. The Biennial Budget request for
fiscal year 2001 fully funds all fiscal year 2001 projects (except the
outyear SIOH tail).
The military construction accounts also benefit from the use of
Advance Appropriations. Four Navy and eight Marine Corps projects
totaling $200 million (fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $50 million)
were added to the fiscal year 2000 program as a result of funds made
available by Advance Appropriations. These projects included a pier
replacement, quality of life facilities including new bachelor enlisted
quarters, maintenance facilities, and projects needed to improve
readiness and training.
I recognize that this new financing technique may be controversial.
We will have to take some additional steps to make it work--we will
have to place a ``limitation of funds'' clause on many construction
projects to insure that obligations and outlays stay within the fiscal
year 2000 appropriated amounts. It will also require much closer fiscal
and acquisition management attention. Since the first year
appropriation is more than sufficient to cover expected outlays, I
expect no adverse impact on program execution. Full authorization and
approval of the fiscal year 2000 and the fiscal year 2001 Advance
Appropriations are the critical ingredients to the success of this
approach. I ask that we work together on the merits of this approach.
Compared with Overall DON Fiscal Year 1999 Budget
The Department of the Navy installation budget includes many
appropriations: Military Construction, Navy (MCON); Military
Construction, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve (MCNR); Family Housing,
Navy (FHN); Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC); and Environmental
Restoration, Navy. 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
fiscal year 2000 installation program totals about $8.1 billion, or
about 9.7 percent of the DON fiscal year 2000 budget of $83.5 billion.
Compared with fiscal year 1999
Our fiscal year 2000 installation program (MCON, MCNR, FHN, BRAC)
of $2.6 billion is eight percent more than the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level of $2.4 billion, and 13 percent more than our fiscal year 1999
budget request of $2.3 billion.
I am pleased to report that our fiscal year 2000 Military
Construction, Navy Authorization request of $922.7 \8\ million is
considerably larger than our fiscal year 1999 budget request of $468
million, or the enacted level of $610 million. It is financed with a
fiscal year 2000 appropriation request of $319.8 million and a fiscal
year 2001 Advance Appropriations request of $496.6 million. Our fiscal
year 2000 program, including Planning and Design and Unspecified Minor
Construction, consists of 42 \9\ Navy projects totaling $688 million
(fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $267.5 million) and 23 Marine Corps
projects totaling $162 million (fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $52.3
million). The fiscal year 2000 Military Construction, Navy and Marine
Corps Reserve program of $15 million (fiscal year 2000 appropriation of
$4.9 million) is similar to the fiscal year 1999 request, but below the
fiscal year 1999 enacted level of $32 million. There are two Marine
Corps reserve projects and one Navy reserve project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Includes full authorization of SIOH and multi-phase
construction of a berthing wharf at San Diego, CA and CINCPAC
headquarters building at Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii.
\9\ Includes $12.7 million Phase II of Norfolk pier upgrade
authorized in fiscal year 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our fiscal year 2000 Family Housing program is summarized in the
following table. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, all Public/Private
Venture construction and improvement projects are included in the DOD
Family Housing Improvement Fund. Thus, our overall fiscal year 2000
Family Housing program of $1,204 million ($1,142.0 million + $61.7
million) is just slightly below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level of
$1,224 million. Our Family Housing Operations and Maintenance request
declines primarily due to inventory reductions of about 4,000 Navy and
1,500 Marine Corps homes and reduced utility costs due to energy
conservation measures. The increase in leasing is due to new leased
units coming on-line at four locations in Italy.
[In Millions of Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year 2000 Fiscal Year 2000
Housing Program 1999 Enacted Authorization 2000 DoD Appropriation
Program Request FHIF Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction.......................................... 301.6 246.9 61.7 64.6
Replacement Construction.............................. [53.0] [75.9] [42.2] [15.2]
Improvements.......................................... [233.0] [153.3] [19.5] [31.7]
Planning & Design..................................... [15.6] [17.7] ............ [17.7]
Operations & Maintenance.............................. 788.3 749.1 ............ 749.1
Leasing............................................... 134.6 146.0 ............ 146.0
---------------------------------------------------------
Total Family Housing, Navy & Marine Corps....... 1,224.5 1,142.0 61.7 959.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our fiscal year 2000 BRAC program of $453 million (fiscal year 2000
appropriation of $198 million) is $122 million below the fiscal year
1999 enacted level of $575 million. This reduction is due to the
virtual completion of BRAC construction and realignment requirements.
Our fiscal year 2000 BRAC program is now nearly all environmental
cleanup. The fiscal year 2000 BRAC environmental program of $382
million (fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $148.7 million) is 44
percent above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level of $265 million.
Our fiscal year 2000 Real Property Maintenance (RPM) request of
$1.5 billion is essentially the same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level. RPM funds in the Operations and Maintenance accounts fund
repairs, preventative and recurring maintenance, minor construction and
centrally managed demolition. To give special emphasis and provide more
management flexibility, $643 million of DON RPM funds are included in
the Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense account.
family housing
Basic Allowance for Housing
We rely first on the private sector to provide housing for our
Sailors, Marines and their families. Our bases have housing referral
offices to help newly arriving families find suitable homes in the
community. In fiscal year 1998, about 74 percent of Navy families and
66 percent of Marine Corps families worldwide lived in a home they
owned or rented in the community.
Service members receive a monthly housing allowance when government
quarters are not provided. Effective 1 January 1998, Basic Allowance
for Housing (BAH) replaced both Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) and
Variable Housing Allowance (VHA). BAH rates are linked to the actual
housing costs where a member is assigned. Members assigned to high-cost
areas will have a higher BAH and will not be required to absorb a
disproportionately higher share of their housing costs ``out of
pocket.'' Once fully implemented in the next four years, members at the
same pay grade and dependent status will pay the same monthly out-of-
pocket amount regardless of location.
While BAH will equalize out of pocket expense across different
locations, the national average out-of-pocket expense remains at 19.8
percent, still considerably higher than the DOD goal of 15 percent. The
fiscal year 2000 budget retains the current 19.8 percent out of pocket
rate. Nonetheless, we believe that the new BAH will be particularly
helpful to Navy and Marine Corps families, as many of our bases are
located in urban and coastal areas where living costs are higher.
Fix What We Own
Even with full implementation of BAH, there will remain many
locations where there are not enough suitable\10\ homes in the
community for our members. In such locations, we have used family
housing funds to build or acquire additional homes. At the end of
fiscal year 1998, the Navy had an inventory of 62,700 homes worldwide
and the Marine Corps had 25,600 homes. We also lease homes both here in
the U. S. and abroad. At the end of fiscal year 1998, we had about
5,500 leased homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Suitability is based on the following DoD criteria: location
(within one hour commute); cost (rent meets DoD criteria); size
(minimum square footage and number of bedrooms); condition (unit is
well maintained and structurally sound). All owner occupied housing is
deemed suitable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our core family housing philosophy remains to first fix what we
own. The Navy's Neighborhoods of Excellence, and the Marine Corps
Family Housing Campaign Plan, embody the Department's efforts to
revitalize major home components for an entire neighborhood, rather
than piecemeal improvements on individual homes. We update electrical
and plumbing systems, replace windows and doors, add insulation,
modernize kitchens and baths, install new landscaping, and install
better street lighting. Using traditional family housing funds, our
fiscal year 2000 improvement program renovates 1,315 Navy homes at 9
locations at a cost of $130 million (fiscal year 2000 appropriation of
$27.2 million), and 407 Marine Corps homes at 6 locations at a cost of
$24 million (fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $4.5 million).
Our fiscal year 2000 family housing construction program has three
replacement construction projects totaling 329 homes, all in Hawaii.
Two projects are at Naval Base Pearl Harbor: 96 homes at Hale Moku for
$19.2 million (fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $3.8 million); and 133
homes at Pearl City for $30.2 million (fiscal year 2000 appropriation
of $6.0 million). The remaining project is to replace 100 homes at
Marine Corps Base Kaneohe for $26.6 million (fiscal year 2000
appropriation of $5.3 million).
Public/Private Ventures
A number of years ago, we realized that the pace of new and
replacement construction and improvements would never let us solve our
seemingly intractable backlog of repairs and shortage of homes. We
worked closely with the Congress to establish ground breaking new
authorities in fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 to use public/
private ventures (PPV) as a housing tool. Under a five-year test
program which expires on 1 February 2001, we can provide cash, direct
loans and loan guarantees, and differential lease payments (DLP). We
can also convey land or lease existing land, housing and facilities to
a developer in exchange for renovation or construction of homes for our
military members and their families. As the Secretary of Defense
announced, our objective was to use these tools to solve a 30-year
housing problem in 10 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------
FAMILY HOUSING SHORTFALLS
[As of the end of Fiscal Year 1998]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy Marine Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair Backlog.................... $2,200,000,000 $1,300,000,000
Deficit (homes)................... 13,600 10,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Completed PPVs
The Navy successfully completed two PPV projects in late 1996 and
early 1997. These projects were started under the 1995 authorities and
completed under the 1996 authorities. In the south Texas area, the Navy
invested $9.5 million, and the developer, Landmark Development Company,
provided the remainder of the $32.5 million total project cost.
Landmark constructed and manages 300 homes in a development called
Bridge Pointe in Portland, TX to support personnel assigned to Naval
Air Station Corpus Christi and Naval Station Ingleside. Landmark also
constructed and manages 100 homes at a development called Hawks Landing
in Kingsville, TX to support personnel assigned to Naval Air Station
Kingsville. Both projects are located off base and are fully leased,
with about 75 percent occupied by military members.
At Everett, WA, the Navy invested $5.9 million in a limited
partnership with Dujardin Development Company to construct and manage
185 homes on private land. The total project cost was $18 million.
Dujardin completed and manages a development called Country Manor at
Smokey Point for personnel assigned to Naval Station Everett, WA. All
units are leased to enlisted families.
PPVs--the next step
We have traveled a long road since those early successes. We
wrestled with a number of key concerns, including the future role of
traditional military construction, construction standards, and occupant
out-of-pocket expenses. We had extensive discussions with fleet
commanders, base commanders, and those we aimed to serve--our Sailors,
Marines and their families. We listened to what they had to say. Last
year, I established a new DON policy on PPV to resolve these and other
issues:
Consider PPV first.--Where communities cannot meet our housing
needs, we will rely first on PPVs, including replacement construction
and whole-house revitalization.
Regional scope.--We will evaluate our housing needs on a regional
basis.
Quality standards.--We will establish PPV housing quality standards
comparable to what the private sector provides for civilians in similar
income scales.
Out-of-pocket expenses.--Our goal is no out-of-pocket expenses for
members.
Rent scale.--Rent scales are based on unit size and quality.
Conveying land or units.--We will not convey land unless it is
excess to our long-term needs.
Allowing non-military occupants.--Service members will have
preference. To ensure full occupancy, PPVs can accommodate civilian
leases of limited duration.
We established two new PPV groups at the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command--one for management and another for acquisition.
These groups will manage PPVs in close coordination with the fleet and
base commanders. Our acquisition strategy has matured to applying two
business models for PPV projects. A Limited Partnership will be used
for terms up to 15 years for housing on private land where our equity
contribution is limited to cash. A Limited Liability Company (LLC) will
be used for a minimum 50-year term for housing on government or private
land where our equity contribution includes privatizing existing
government owned housing. Both include escrow accounts, performance
bonds, insurance, and personal and corporate guarantees to ensure that
our interests are protected during the construction phase and
succeeding years. Both models minimize government liability while still
giving us flexibility to address changing requirements over the long-
term as our needs, and local market conditions change. The longer term
of the LLC led us to expand the use of cash reserves, participation in
property management decisions, incentive clauses, and termination
options for non-performance.
PPVs Now in Process
We have undertaken an ambitious, but I believe attainable goal over
the next three years of over 33,000 PPV units at 16 locations for the
Navy and over 8,000 PPV homes at 9 locations for the Marine Corps.
These figures include both existing units and construction of new
housing. Each of these projects has the full support of the fleet and
local commanders. These projects will provide our Sailors and Marines
with better housing sooner much sooner. Communities will also benefit
from the additional housing construction and increased tax base.
Many PPV efforts have already met critical milestones. The Marine
Corps is in the final stages of negotiations with a developer to
exchange 419 existing homes and land located off-base for up to 160 new
on base homes at Marine Corps Base Albany, GA. We expect to provide
Congressional notification of the selection of a developer very soon.
The Marine Corps issued a solicitation in November 1998 to
privatize and revitalize 512 on base homes, and construct 200 new homes
on base at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. The first part of this
project would be funded with $20 million in previously authorized and
appropriated funds.
The Navy negotiated modifications to the existing agreements with
Dujardin Development and Landmark Development to provide DLP on behalf
of service members. Payments would be paid directly to the developer to
buy-down the service member's out-of-pocket expenses (rent plus
utilities) to the BAH rate. We expect to provide congressional
notification of the contract award and intent to transfer funds to
implement the DLP selection this summer.
In January 1999, the Navy issued solicitations to competitively
enter into two new limited partnerships for 300 townhouses near Naval
Station Everett, WA, and 150 apartments and townhouses near Naval Air
Station Kingsville, TX. The Navy envisions a mix of 2-, 3-, and 4-
bedroom homes on privately owned land for active duty enlisted
personnel. Funding for the Navy share (including DLP) would come from
$29 million in previously authorized and appropriated funds. We expect
to notify the Congress of the selections later this year.
In the last five months, we have provided Congressional
notification to issue solicitations for PPV projects in South Texas;
San Diego, CA; Lemoore, CA; Brunswick, ME; and New Orleans, LA. Each
PPV project would privatize all or substantial portions of government
owned housing, renovate or demolish inadequate homes, and construct new
units on or off-base. We would fund our share of the investment using
the equity of those housing assets and $114 million in previously
authorized and appropriated family housing funds. These projects are
currently on hold by the House Appropriations MILCON Subcommittee. We
continue our discussions with the Subcommittee to resolve their
concerns.
We plan to provide Congressional notification to issue
solicitations for seven more Navy and seven more Marine Corps locations
during the course of this year. Our share of the investment cost for
these projects would come from $257 million in previously authorized
and appropriated funds, plus additional funds in the FHIF. Our fiscal
year 2000 program includes nearly $61.6 million in the FHIF for PPV
projects at five locations. These funds will also be combined with
additional prior year and future year funds for additional PPV projects
at some locations.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR 2000 PPV PROJECTS IN FAMILY HOUSING
IMPROVEMENT FUND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds in
Location Millions # Homes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAS Lemoore, CA......................... $20.1 406
MCAS Cherry Pt, NC...................... 22.0 728
NTC Great lakes, IL..................... 14.4 885
NICP Philadelphia, PA................... 0.2 6
Parris Island........................... 4.9 201
-------------------------------
Total............................. 61.6 2,196
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
military construction
Our military construction program continues our approach of
budgeting for only those projects that meet the highest priority
readiness and quality of life needs of the Fleet and Fleet Marine
Force, and their Reserve Components. The Navy convenes a Shore
Facilities Programming Board and the Marine Corps convenes a MILCON
Program Evaluation Group each year to consider, evaluate, and
prioritize military construction projects. Projects are selected based
on a number of different criteria, including fleet priorities and the
most critical readiness, quality of life, and compliance needs.
Military Construction policy, like Family Housing, focuses on first
fixing what we own. To this end, 62 percent of the active and reserve
military construction program for the Navy and 45 percent for the
Marine Corps is dedicated to replacement and modernization projects.
This budget expands our efforts begun last year to modernize our
piers and wharves. Our construction program includes $168 million for
five pier/wharf projects. Examples include:
--Berthing Wharf at Naval Submarine Base Pearl Harbor, HI. This $29.5
million project (fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $7.5
million) replaces two wharves built in the 1940s that are now
deteriorated beyond repair and that do not have the structural
capacity to support heavier mobile cranes now used to service
new submarines.
--Berthing Pier at Naval Station Norfolk,VA. This is the second phase
of a $45.5 million project to replace Pier 2, which is over 50
years old. Pier 2 now has limited deck space, inadequate power
supply, and lacks the structural strength to safely support
current ship classes. Full authorization and a $32.0 million
appropriation were provided in fiscal year 1999. This budget
requests the remaining $12.7 million to complete the
replacement of Pier 2, with a $0.8 million SIOH tail through
fiscal year 2004.
Our construction program also funds 14 operational facilities
totaling $35 million. Examples include:
--Control Tower and Air Traffic Control Facility at Marine Corps
Base, HI. This $5.8 million project (fiscal year 2000
appropriation of $1.5 million) replaces an existing control
tower built that is deteriorated and lacks sufficient height to
meet safety and FAA regulations. The project also replaces
trailers installed in the early 80's that are too small to
install new equipment scheduled for installation in 2001.
--Operational Support Facilities, Naval Support Activity, Souda Bay,
Crete. This $6.4 million project (fiscal year 2000
appropriation of $1.6 million) provides several new buildings
and an aircraft-parking apron to replace temporary trailers.
There are 8 projects totaling $40 million to support military
training functions. Examples include:
--Strike Fighter Weapons Training Facility, Lemoore, CA. This $4.0
million project (fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $1.0
million) upgrades and expands an existing facility to support
the introduction of the F/A-18E/F aircraft to NAS Lemoore.
--Staff Non-Commissioned Officer Academy, Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton, CA. This $6.5 million project (fiscal year 2000
appropriation of $1.6 million) provides an academic instruction
building, armory and warehouse complex to replace temporary
facilities that are located far from where the students do much
of their training.
There are 17 maintenance and storage projects totaling $120
million. Examples include:
--Aircraft Acoustical Enclosure at Naval Air Station Oceana, VA. This
$11.5 million project (fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $2.9
million) provides a means to control noise generated during in-
frame high power jet engine testing on F-14 and F/A-18 aircraft
engines.
--Tactical Vehicle Maintenance Facility, Marine Corps Base Twentynine
Palms, CA. This $14.0 million project (fiscal year 2000
appropriation of $3.4 million) provides a maintenance facility
with an overhead crane, sunshades, and parking for tactical
vehicles used during Combined Arms Exercises.
There are six environmental compliance and safety of life projects
totaling $52 million. Examples include:
--Sewage Treatment Plant, Naval Surface Warfare Center Division,
Indian Head, MD. This $10.1 million project (fiscal year 2000
appropriation of $2.6 million) would demolish 17 failing septic
systems and connect them to an upgraded treatment plant. The
current plant is in violation of the Clean Water Act and
Maryland Department of Environment standards.
--Hazardous Materials Storage Facility at Naval Air Station Joint
Reserve Base Willow Grove, PA. This $1.9 million project
(fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $0.3 million) in the
Military Construction Naval and Marine Corps Reserve
Appropriation provides a facility to store hazardous and
flammable material in compliance with environmental and safety
standards. Existing facilities have been cited for non-
compliance.
The single most expensive project in our budget is an $86.0 million
project (fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $15.9 million) to construct
a new U. S. CINCPAC headquarters building at Camp H. M. Smith, HI. This
project, to be constructed in three phases, would consolidate personnel
that currently occupy portions of 25 different buildings, nearly all of
which are deemed substandard or inadequate.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navy BQ Goals
Eliminate the 6,900 BQ spaces with gang heads by fiscal year 2008;
Eliminate the $648 million BQ repair backlog by fiscal year 2004;
Achieve the 1 + 1 standard by fiscal year 2013.
Marine Corps BQ Goals
Eliminate 10,400 BQ spaces with gang heads by fiscal year 2005;
Eliminate the $114 million BQ repair backlog by fiscal year 2004;
Assign more than two Marines per room by fiscal year 2036.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quality of Life
There are a number of important quality of life projects included
in our fiscal year 2000 budget. The single largest effort is for the
construction and modernization of Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQs).
The DOD adopted a 1 + 1 construction standard in 1995 for permanent
party personnel. This configuration consists of two individual living
and sleeping rooms with closets, and a shared bath and service area.
The Marine Corps has been granted a permanent waiver to use an
alternate 2 + configuration for junior enlisted, i.e., two persons per
room. This allows the Marine Corps to foster team building and build
unit cohesion. These standards do not apply to recruits and A-school
students. Overseas locations also have unique considerations.
The Navy has 12 BQ projects totaling $205 million (fiscal year 2000
appropriation of $51.4 million) in the fiscal year 2000 program.
--Four projects are being built to the 1 + 1 standard for permanent
party E1-E4 personnel. They provide a total of 582 two-room
modules.
--Three projects are being built to the 2 + standard for E1-E4
personnel. They provide a total of 405 single-room modules. One
of these projects is at a Marine Corps base where the 2 +
standard applies; another is in Southwest Asia; the third is at
Pearl Harbor as an interim step to the 1 + 1 standard due to
the large shortage of adequate spaces.
--Four projects are being built to the 2 + 2 configuration for A-
school students and transients. They provide a total of 484
two-room modules.
--One open bay project, which provides space for 480 recruits at
Naval Recruit Training Center Great Lakes, IL.
The Marine Corps has three projects totaling $50 million (fiscal
year 2000 appropriation of $12.5 million) in the fiscal year 2000
program. All three Marine Corps projects are being built to the 2 +
standard. They provide a total of 592 single-room modules for junior
enlisted personnel.
Both the Navy and Marine Corps are on track to achieve their long-
range BQ goals. Navy BQ 1 + 1 and Marine Corps 2 + transition plans are
nearing completion. Since moving to the new BQ construction standards,
the Navy has completed thirteen 1 + 1 BQ projects providing 1,800 rooms
and three 2 + BQ projects providing 600 rooms. The Marine Corps has
completed three 1 + 1 BQ projects\11\ with 961 rooms and four 2 + BQ
projects providing 804 rooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ These Marine Corps 1 + 1 BQ projects were initiated prior to
the blanket waiver to the 2 + 0 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are other quality of life projects in the fiscal year 2000
program: the Navy has two multi-purpose fitness facilities, and the
Marine Corps has a child development center, a family services center,
and two fitness facilities.
base realignment and closure
Realignment and Closure Status
We are implementing four rounds of base realignment and closure
(BRAC), 1988 under Public Law 100-526 and 1991, 1993, and 1995 under
Public Law 101-510. As a result of these decisions, we are implementing
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.
While this has been a complex challenge for the Department as well
as for the communities that hosted our ships, aircraft, Sailors,
Marines and their families for so many years, we have made substantial
progress.
As of the end of January 1999, we had completed the operational
closure or realignment of 93 percent (165 of 178) of all BRAC actions.
Operational closure means that all mission equipment and military
personnel (with the exception of a small caretaker cadre) have been
disestablished or relocated to a ``receiving'' site. We will complete
eight more actions in 1999, four in 2000, and one in 2001. We will meet
the statutory requirement to complete all BRAC closure and realignment
actions by July 2001. As of the end of fiscal year-1998, we had
obligated 98 percent of the $8.5 billion appropriated for DON BRAC
actions.
BRAC Costs and Savings
We have closed or realigned bases to make the Navy's shore
infrastructure more proportional to its force structure and to provide
resources to recapitalize our weapons systems and platforms. As of the
end of fiscal year 1998, we had spent $8.5 billion on all four BRAC
rounds to construct new or adapt existing facilities, move personnel,
equipment, ships and aircraft to their new homeports, and clean up
contamination. We will have saved $8.0 billion from no longer having to
operate, maintain, and staff these bases. The result is a net cost of
$471 million to date. However, at the end of this fiscal year, our net
savings will exceed our net cost by $1.4 billion. And by the end of
fiscal year 2001, when all four rounds will be completed, we project
that the DON will have spent $9.9 billion and saved $15.7 billion, for
a net savings of $5.8 billion. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, we will
save an additional $2.6 billion each year. These net savings estimates
have been validated by several independent sources.
Environmental Cleanup
As we near the completion of BRAC-related construction, we are
fully focused on finishing environmental cleanup and completing
property disposal. We have already spent more than $1.0 billion through
fiscal year 1998 on environmental work at our BRAC bases for
environmental baseline studies to identify potential contaminated sites
and assess the nature and extent of contamination to doing the cleanup,
removing underground storage tanks, and closing hazardous material
storage facilities.
Each base has established BRAC cleanup teams composed of remedial
managers from the Navy, States, and the Environmental Protection Agency
to review, prioritize, and expedite the necessary cleanups consistent
with reuse plans. We recognize the dynamics of reuse and stand prepared
to phase our cleanup plans as needed to support changing community
needs.
One measure of our progress in cleanup of contaminated property is
the number of acres that have become suitable for transfer under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act
(CERFA). Properties in categories 1-4 are 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. The table shows the progress we have made moving property
towards categories 1-4. Most of the environmental studies are nearing
completion. Fully 70 percent of our fiscal year 2000 BRAC environmental
effort is targeted towards actual cleanup.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACRES (ALL BRAC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September September September
1996 1997 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CERFA Cat 1-4.......................... 107,833 143,100 147,119
CERFA Cat 5............................ 11,260 1,596 3,193
CERFA Cat 6............................ 7,572 6,395 5,831
CERFA Cat 7............................ 39,194 14,768 9,716
--------------------------------
Total............................ 165,859 165,859 165,859
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
There are 1,000 contaminated sites at 53 BRAC installations. A
contaminated site crosses the ``cleanup finish line'' when it achieves
Remedy-in-Place/Response Complete (RIP/RC) and the regulator
subsequently concurs. As of the end of fiscal year 1998, we had
achieved RIP/RC status at 44 percent of all BRAC sites. By the end of
fiscal year 2001, when BRAC ends, we expect to have completed cleanup
at 90 percent of all BRAC sites. Cleanup at the remaining sites will
extend through fiscal year 2010.
We are finding and continually searching for more ways to reduce
cleanup costs. We are using promising cleanup technologies and adopting
natural attenuation for low relative risk parcels at a number of our
BRAC sites. We continue to work with regulators and communities to tie
cleanup standards to realistic reuse needs. We use a BRAC Cost-to-
Complete (CTC) index as a measure of our efforts to reduce cleanup
costs. At the beginning of fiscal year 1996, our BRAC CTC estimate was
$2.8 billion. At the end of fiscal year 1998, it was $1.5 billion. The
CTC reduction of $1.3 billion is the result of execution of $868
million in appropriated funds and $441 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.
Section 334 Early Transfer Opportunities
Section 334 of the Fiscal Year 1997 Defense Authorization Act
established a framework for the DOD to initiate an early transfer of
contaminated property to the community. This authority allows DOD to
defer the CERCLA requirement that all remediation actions have been
taken before the date of property transfer.
Section 334 requires that we first meet a number of conditions. We
must obtain concurrence from the governor of the State where the
property is located. If the property is listed on the National
Priorities List, the Administrator of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency must also concur with the early transfer.
Furthermore, we must determine that the property is suitable for
transfer for the use intended by the transferee. We may place
restrictions in the deed limiting the use of the property if determined
necessary to protection of human health and the environment. Also, we
must submit a budget that adequately addresses cleanup of the property.
This authority does not relieve us from full compliance with the
provisions of CERCLA.
We are pursuing several early transfer opportunities. All of them
would conceivably expedite the conveyance of the property and may also
reduce cleanup costs. Three early transfer opportunities are
particularly promising.
--At the former Naval Training Center San Diego, CA, the San Diego
Unified Port Authority has requested early transfer of a 51-
acre site, which contains a former landfill. The parcel is
adjacent to San Diego's Lindbergh Field Airport and will be
redeveloped as a vehicle parking area. The cleanup remedy would
be integrated into construction of the parking area.
--At the former Fleet Industrial and Supply Center Oakland, CA, the
Port of Oakland has requested early transfer of the entire main
site comprising 528 acres. The primary remaining cleanup action
involves a four-acre site where a dry cleaner shop was located.
The Port of Oakland is moving rapidly to transform this former
Navy base to expand the Port's container terminal and has
already demolished numerous structures to make way for their
new development.
--At the former Naval Air Station Memphis, TN, the Millington
Municipal Airport Authority has requested early transfer of 537
acres for airfield operations at the municipal airport. The
site contains residual trichloroethylene groundwater
contamination from solvents used in past Navy aircraft
operations.
Property Reuse
Under the mandate of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969, we consider the potential environmental impacts of disposal
and reuse of base closure property before we convey property. We
evaluate issues involving historic preservation, air quality, noise,
traffic, natural habitat, and endangered species. The NEPA process
concludes with the issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD). In fiscal
year 1998, we completed seven RODs. Eight more are planned for this
fiscal year and 10 for next year.
As the Local Redevelopment Authorities develop and refine their
reuse plans, we want to support immediate reuse opportunities through
Interim Leases and Leases in Furtherance of Conveyance. We must first
prepare a Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) document. At the end
of fiscal year 1998, we had over 1,000 FOSLs in place covering nearly
18,000 acres. This year, we plan to issue more than 40 more FOSLs
covering 19,000 acres.
At the end of fiscal year-1998, we had about 115 leases in place
between the Navy and LRAs. Leased property is being used for a variety
of purposes: port usage, movie production, steel fabrication, general
manufacturing and repair, education, housing, childcare, shipbreaking,
and police facilities. These leases have created several thousand jobs
to help communities recover from the loss of the Navy and Marine Corps
presence. The leases provide protection and property maintenance
clauses and generate significant revenue for the LRA.
Property Disposal
While leases are desirable, they are only an interim step to the
ultimate BRAC goal of property disposal. The DON must dispose of 434
parcels of land on 91 BRAC bases. Each BRAC base has a disposal
strategy tailored for that base. It incorporates LRA reuse plans with
environmental cleanup timetables, NEPA documentation, conveyance plans
and schedules and transition requirements into a comprehensive business
strategy for conveying the Navy property to another entity.
Like the FOSL, a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) is
needed before we actually convey property. Here again, we are making
good progress. As of the end of fiscal year 1998, we had completed 64
FOSTs covering nearly 29,000 acres. In fiscal year 1999, we plan to add
more than 200 FOSTs covering 23,000 acres.
Through the end of fiscal year 1998, we had conveyed through
economic development conveyances, negotiated sales, public sales, or
Public Benefit Transfer over 1,850 acres, and earned $10.2 million in
revenue that is being reapplied toward BRAC cleanup. Our budget assumes
we will receive about $5 million in land sale revenue during fiscal
year 2000; these funds will be applied towards environmental cleanup of
other BRAC property.
In addition to expediting the communities' economic recovery, we
want to dispose of BRAC property as soon as practicable so that we can
avoid caretaker costs and focus on our core mission. The Navy
recognized early on that the sooner a base closed and property was
disposed, the sooner savings would be achieved. We have established
cooperative agreements at many bases where the Navy has provided
funding and 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.
After a base closes, however, disposal of the base closure property
presents the most complex challenge. In the disposal process, the Navy
is guided by the President's Five-Part Plan for Revitalizing Base
Closure Communities, which emphasizes local economic redevelopment of
the closing installation and the creation of new jobs. The Navy is
bound by a legal framework of property disposal and environmental
statutes that govern each phase of the disposal process.
The LRA's are central to the property disposal process. Their
timely submission of a comprehensive, feasible reuse plan that will
meet the standards of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) and the broad range of Federal statutes that govern treatment of
protected resources is fundamental to the Navy's ability to proceed
with the disposal of the property. The LRA must present a request to
acquire the property that is consistent with one of the four statutory
methods available to the Navy to dispose of BRAC property. Often, the
LRA's do not meet these statutory requirements and property disposal is
significantly delayed. In certain instances, the LRA is not adequately
equipped or financially capable of assuming the responsibilities of
owning the property and conveyance of base closure property to the LRA
lags far behind Navy schedules for disposal of the property. The
quickest and most efficient way to dispose of BRAC property may be by
direct public sale.
infrastructure efficiency efforts
Need for Two More Rounds of BRAC
I have so far discussed our investment plans to improve our
infrastructure. However, as I indicated previously, we still have
significantly more infrastructure remaining after four BRAC rounds than
needed to support the conceivable force structure of the future. The
Quadrennial Defense Review, Defense Reform Initiative, and the National
Defense Panel all concluded that more rounds of BRAC are required to
further shrink the military infrastructure. An April 1998 DOD report to
Congress, submitted in accordance with Section 2824 of the fiscal year
1998 National Defense Authorization Act, analyzed capacity by types of
bases for each military department and Defense Logistics Agency. The
report concluded that the DOD has about 23 percent excess base
capacity. The report also validated BRAC savings estimates, and noted
that actual one-time implementation costs are close to or less than
initial estimates.
I again ask your support for DOD's request for two more BRAC
rounds, beginning in fiscal year-2001.
Re-inventing Shore Infrastructure
As we ask for two more rounds of BRAC, we have not been sitting
idle. Under the leadership of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary
of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, we have a multitude of initiatives well underway to make
our infrastructure more effective and less costly.
We have charted an ambitious course. The Navy has programmed $8
billion in savings over the fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2005
period; the Marine Corps has programmed $370 million over the same
period. We also realize that these efforts require us to invest money,
sometimes, significant sums of money up-front to do the necessary
analyses. We are carefully evaluating proposals, and where the
potential payback appears convincing, we are stepping up to the plate
and putting money in the budget to pursue the most promising
initiatives. Given the wide variety of initiatives, the Deputy Chief of
Naval Operations (Logistics) has developed a strategic business plan
that melds these myriad opportunities into a cohesive vision while
still providing execution flexibility to Fleet and Base commanders.
Here are but a few examples:
--Competitive Sourcing.--We are reviewing all ``commercial
activities,'' i.e., those functions that are now performed by
military or DON civilians but that are also performed by the
private sector. Using the Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-76 process, we are competing to find who can best
perform such functions as food services, housing management,
grounds maintenance, facility maintenance, data processing, and
aircraft refueling--a ``most efficient organization'' of in-
house personnel, or by contract to a private sector provider.
This single initiative holds promise to generate over $5
billion in savings by fiscal year-2005. We are still on the
front end of this effort. We have to date announced
competitions for about 21,000 Navy military and civilian
billets. The Marine Corps plans to announce their first
competitions later this year. A total of about 80,000 Navy and
5,000 Marine Corps billets are planned. Early results are
promising. The Navy has completed competition of 896 billets so
far, which have generated $9.4 million in annual savings.
--Building Demolition.--The goal of the building demolition program
is to eliminate aging, unneeded and often unsightly facilities
and their associated operating and maintenance costs. The Navy
plans to demolish over 9.9 million square feet and the Marine
Corps 2.2 million square feet by fiscal year 2002. Both the
Navy and Marine Corps have centrally managed demolition
programs with funds included in Real Property Maintenance
Operations and Maintenance accounts. Through the end of fiscal
year 1998, we had invested $63 million to demolish 5.9 million
square feet and removed nearly $600 million in PRV from our
rolls. We are now investing about $40 million per year. Our
fiscal year 1999 program consists of 59 projects to demolish
534 structures.
--Privatization of Utilities.--Defense Reform Initiative Directive 49
directed the Services to privatize all their natural gas,
water, wastewater and electrical systems except where
uneconomical or where the systems are needed for unique
security reasons. This is expected to reduce costs while
providing quality utility services. The Navy has 751 systems
and the Marine Corps has 135 systems worldwide to be examined
for privatization. We have budgeted $11.2 million in fiscal
year 1999 and $33.7 million in fiscal year 2000 to perform the
necessary studies to meet the first DOD milestone: a
determination by 30 September 2000 of which utility systems to
try to privatize. Subsequent milestones are to issue all
Requests for Proposals by 30 September 2001, and to award all
contracts by 30 September 2003.
--Claimant Consolidation/Regionalization of Base Operating Support
(BOS).--Effective 1 October 1998, the Navy consolidated the
number of major commands with BOS responsibilities from 18 to
8. Regional BOS Commands have been established to manage the
BOS functions. This consolidation will allow smaller commands
to focus on their primary mission, and provide new
opportunities to optimize these functions under a single
commander in a Navy fleet concentration area. The Regional BOS
Commanders are now pursuing ways to develop more effective
business practices.
--Smart Base.--Smart Base is an attempt to bring off-the-shelf modern
technology and business practices to Navy applications. A
variety of demonstrations are planned or underway that promise
to increase efficiency and reduce costs. One example is
Distributed Learning Centers (DLC), which provide classroom
skill training without the need to travel to a distant
schoolhouse. DLC is now deployed at 90 sites. Another example
is Small Procurement Electronic Data Interchange (SPEDI), which
provides paperless ordering of standard supplies and material
on-line.
conclusion
In conclusion, I believe the DON infrastructure program is now
stronger than it has been in recent memory. Some of the additional
topline relief made available to the DON has been applied to our
programs. I believe we have truly turned the corner on our housing PPV
effort. We are investing more military construction funds to renew and
upgrade critical waterfront, maintenance, operational, and training
facilities, while staying on track with our plans to improve the living
conditions of our single Sailors and Marines. We are proceeding with
numerous promising initiatives to make our infrastructure more
responsive and less costly.
There is admittedly some concern and potential risk in delayed
execution by financing our fiscal year 2000 construction program using
Advance Appropriations. However, with the help of the Congress, I
believe that we can safely manage this new effort with no real impact
on construction time lines.
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.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
We welcome our good friend, Senator Murray, from
Washington, the ranking member on this committee. If you have
an opening statement, we would like to hear from you now.
Prepared Statement of Senator Murray
Senator Murray. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize
for being late. I am trying to juggle several committee
hearings this morning. I will just submit my statement for the
record so that we can get to the questions for the panel. But
just let me express my concern about the incremental funding
plans, as you have as well, and I hope that we can work through
that process and come to some good conclusions.
So, thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patty Murray
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing to discuss the
fiscal year 2000 construction program proposed by our navy and defense
agencies.
I share the concerns that you have raised regarding the incremental
funding plan for military construction proposed by the defense
department. I have not detected a great deal of enthusiasm for this
scheme from any source, including those who devised it.
Given the lukewarm endorsement of this plan by the services, I'm
sure the chilly reception it has received on Capitol Hill comes as no
surprise to any of our witnesses.
It is clear to me that there are a number of risks associated with
this plan.
The services have indicated that they can execute construction
projects under this incremental funding formula, and I have great faith
in their ability, but they have also acknowledged that incremental
funding could drive up costs, will definitely complicate oversight, and
could result in schedule delays.
This is not an auspicious start to preparing our services to meet
the challenges of the New Millennium.
The fact is, the infrastructure and quality of life programs that
the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee oversees are
crucial to the morale and readiness of our armed forces.
This is not an area in which we can afford to cut corners.
I have heard over and over again about the importance of quality of
life issues to the men and women who serve in our military, and to
their families. Deteriorating infrastructure at U.S. bases in this
country and around the world is hampering our military's readiness at a
time when the operating tempo is soaring.
Increased deployments are putting an added strain on families at a
time when military family resources--housing, schools, clinics, support
services--are struggling just to keep up with demand.
I note, for example, that ms. McGinn, in her prepared statement,
says that the defense department is currently meeting only 58 percent
of the total child care needs of the military members, and that the
goal is to meet 65 percent by the year 2003. That leaves a huge gap in
childcare services, which, as any working parent knows, is a necessity,
not a luxury.
While I appreciate the fact that the defense department is working
to find a variety of solutions to meet child care demands, the fact
remains that all the creative thinking in the world won't help families
who need quality child care now.
I am convinced that the military will never solve its recruitment
and retention problems unless it pays significantly more attention--and
commits a significantly larger proportion of its resources--to family
needs. I am in no way attempting to imply that quality of life issues
are more important than war fighting capabilities, but I do contend
that both are essential elements of readiness, and both deserve our
support. know that you take very seriously the responsibilities of this
subcommittee, and I commend you for the fair and even-handed leadership
that you have consistently demonstrated in your handling of the many
demands placed before this panel.
Given the budget constraints that we are facing, this is likely to
be a more challenging year than usual. I wholeheartedly hope, in terms
of proposals to finance military construction, that it is also an
aberrant year, and that incremental funding proposals will not become a
habit.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome our witnesses, and I look
forward to hearing their testimony.
Senator Burns. We are joined now with a little Alaska
sunshine, Senator Stevens, the full chairman of the
Appropriations Committee.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, am worried about the problem of this deferred
construction concept in the MILCON accounts, and I think we
better find a middle ground fairly soon. We are trying to make
some study to see whether this concept will drive construction
costs up because of the risk factor involved in continued
appropriations for some, as opposed to others.
In tight budgets, people like to know, when they get a
contract, think that the money is in the bank, literally. We
have always believed that it got us a lower price when people
knew they really had the money tied down. The contractors have
not been heard yet on this. I think, Mr. Chairman, we ought to
think about getting some contractors to come in and tell us, if
it is possible, what impact this new process would have on
these contracts.
I remember once when Senator Stennis had a similar
suggestion about starting a major naval vessel with a down
payment and how he reacted. That was short-lived, and he was
capable of making decisions and sticking to them.
I think our problem now is that we do have a ceiling here
for the year 2000. If I am right, we are going to get the wall
between defense and non-defense spending back again in the
congressional budget resolution when it is not in the
administration's budget. That needs to be explored also, to see
how confusing that is going to become as we try to avoid
another train wreck, as we call it, having an omnibus bill at
the end of this session.
But, I do want to tell you I am grateful to you for your
concept of leasing before final turnover of facilities. I am
particularly concerned still with the Adak situation. Your
people have been very willing to consider the concept of
leasing prior to final turnover. I think there are some of
those areas that ought to be accelerated, and they should
consider additional facilities that could be leased, because
currently the limitations are very great.
In addition to that, there are some areas that are sort of
out of bounds for the people who are trying to work there
because of classification under the environmental concerns.
Because environmental concerns have been expressed in some
areas, I would like to have them reviewed. I think we are being
too strict about that. If Navy personnel were able to operate
there for the period since World War II on those properties
without harm to the person, without extensive risks to the
employees, I do not know why they should suddenly become out of
bounds as far as successors in operation are concerned. They
have expressed great consternation to me about that.
Have you been out there lately, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Pirie. I have not been there in about 3 years, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Stevens. I hate to tell you, I have not been out
there in about that time, too. Why don't we take a trip out
there some time this year and take a look? Because I keep
getting reports that the future of that civilian takeover is
going to be severely impacted if they do not get access to the
properties they need to commence business operations,
particularly going into fuel supply for the trans-Pacific
airlines and air cargo carriers, and into some concept of pre-
port fabrication of materials brought through there by air
cargo operations. If that does not get started soon, it will
not be a possibility, with the longer- and longer-range
aircraft being available to all the carriers.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pirie. I would be glad to work with you, Mr. Chairman,
on those issues.
Senator Stevens. I appreciate that. I am just dropping by.
We have about five subcommittees meeting at the same time this
morning. I think I have some questions I will submit for the
record for you all. Thank you very much.
INCREMENTAL FUNDING
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your
comments. And I will tell you that we started a review on some
of this, Mr. Chairman, with the Secretary, and that continues.
So, we appreciate that.
Secretary Pirie, I am still concerned about the
Department's plan to phase-fund military construction in 2000.
I recognize that there is tremendous fiscal year pressures to
realign money. We know where those pressures are coming from,
and I am afraid that if the practice continues, it may have
long-term implications on what we can do with this committee
and the challenges we have had.
Do you want to comment on that? Because the realignment of
money this past year--this past 2 years, really--has been
substantial.
Mr. Pirie. Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess I share Senator
Stevens' concern about the amount of risk that we are imposing
on the people that we are dealing with and the effect that that
is going to have on what they are going to have to charge in
order for them to operate responsibly and for them to get
access to financing. Admiral Smith looked into this and talked
to some people about this. And I think he can expand on that.
Senator Burns. Admiral Smith?
Admiral Smith. Senator, as the head of the contracting
agency for the Navy that executes the military construction
program, when this concept was first broached, sir, I called in
all of my attorneys and contract specialists, and we first went
over the legalities of actually executing a program this way.
And after we had determined that it could be done in accordance
with the Federal Acquisition Regulations and with existing law,
I then said, well, what is our risk here, what is it going to
cost us? And, to be honest with you, we could not tell.
So, I made a couple of phone calls. And I called the
president of the Association of General Contractors, as well as
the CEO of a major construction company in America. And I asked
them specifically, if I put a clause in a contract that says,
``subject to the availability of funds,'' will it cost me any
money; and, if so, how much?
In both cases, my friends said it will definitely cost you
more money. However, it will vary with the contract. And it
will vary with the project. And we cannot tell you it will be
$10, a half a percent or 20 percent, because it will vary with
the project. But it will be in there. And, oh, by the way, it
may well restrict the number of people who are interested in
doing government work, as opposed to the way it is now.
Senator Burns. Admiral, were you successful in any way of
determining our old conventional way of financing those
projects, how much more that cost is going to be?
Admiral Smith. No, sir. And I tried to press them on that,
because they tend to be very, very detailed in their cost
accounting, on what it costs them to do work. And they of
course do work for the private sector, as well as the public
sector. And they said, no, it is just a matter of introducing
risk into a business deal, and we will put an extra percentage
on the side. But it will vary with the job, so we cannot give
you a singular answer.
Senator Burns. Did that make you think that maybe this
approach may have to be looked into further, though?
Admiral Smith. Yes, sir. Again, I am always concerned about
getting the best value in any procurement for the taxpayers.
And if there would be extra administrative costs or uncertainty
costs in here, from my perspective, personally, it certainly
would be something that we would want to look at.
BARRACKS
Senator Burns. Secretary Pirie, I understand that the Navy
will not be able to implement the 1-plus-1 standard until 2013.
That is 14 years out there. And, by the way, looking out into
the future, the only time we talk about that is sort of with
the budget. We do not look at the immediate needs. I can
remember one time we held a hearing on Y2K in 1991. We did not
get one drop of ink, and now everybody is in this crash program
of Y2K.
I am wondering, is the Navy allocating sufficient resources
to solve this problem? And do you have a handle on that, when
we spread that out that far, the total cost? I have a feeling
it is going to cost us more.
Mr. Pirie. I am not sure about whether it is going to cost
us more, Mr. Chairman. We are putting about $120 million a year
in MILCON for Navy Bachelor Quarters (BQ's) and $90 million for
real property maintenance. Not making the 1-plus-1 by 2013 is
not the whole question by any means. Because we have a
succession of other kinds of standards which are going to
improve quality of life for people other than the 1-plus-1's--
for example, the 2-plus-0's that we are putting in for the A
schools and for transients or the barracks we are building for
recruits.
So, even though it takes us a long while to converge on
getting 1-plus-1 for everybody, we are steadily improving the
overall quality of our barracks housing for single sailors. And
I think that goes for the marines, as well.
Senator Burns. Yes, I want to hear from General
Higginbotham.
General Higginbotham. Sir, we have a little bit different
challenge. And what we are looking to do, at least with the
2000 money, is be able to get our marines out of gang head and
open squad bays by the year 2005. But it is also going to take
until 2037 just to get our marines in the two men per room.
Now, that is not 2-by-0, that is just two men per room.
Senator Burns. Do not plan on me being there to cut the
ribbon. [Laughter.]
General Higginbotham. Right. So, that is really reaching
out there.
What we have recently done, though, the Commandant and I
have put together a 10-year plan that will improve those
numbers. But to be able to do that is going to require some
enhancement. And so what we would really like to be able to do
is have two men per room by the year 2020. And so we have a
plan that will get us there, but it is going to take a little
help to do that. And so that is what we are striving to do.
So, we have a very aggressive plan in terms of the money
that we are putting into MILCON and quality of life is very
aggressive at this point.
Senator Burns. Tell me, is it such a big, important item in
retention? Is that a major item in retention?
General Higginbotham. Absolutely.
Senator Burns. From your observations.
General Higginbotham. Oh, absolutely it is. In fact, during
this past month, I had the opportunity--I visited every one of
our installations in the Marine Corps to look at all of our
fiscal year 2000 MILCON projects. And in particular, I went out
to Twentynine Palms, and I looked at one facility they had out
there for students. And in one barracks, we have six students
per room, inadequate lighting, no adequate desks. And so it is
that kind of environment that we really have to do something
about.
And so these are our young marines that, even though it is
a Permanent Change of Station (PCS), they are there for a year
to undergo schooling, that is really inadequate. So, that is
really what we are trying to do, is put money into readiness,
do something about Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQ's) and
quality of life. And so that is a principal piece of our focus.
RETENTION AND RECRUITING
And, Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one other quick
statement here, because in your opening statement you talked
about retention and recruiting. And so, your Marine Corps is
doing very well as it relates to recruiting and retention. We
have made those goals 44 months straight.
Now, with that said, this is tough business. And so we
truly have our best marines out there recruiting. But it takes
leadership and hard work to do it. But we are doing very well
at this point.
Senator Burns. Any comment, Admiral Totushek?
Admiral Totuschek. No, sir.
Senator Burns. Secretary Pirie, did you want to respond?
Mr. Pirie. Well, I was just going to say, as to the
retention value of improving the BQ's, I mean the Marsh panel
was unequivocal about how important it is. And in my talking to
young sailors and marines, when they see the kind of new 2-
plus-0's and 1-plus-1's, they are absolutely delighted. So, I
think it is important.
Senator Burns. Well, I do, too. When we started down this
road, and when Senator Murray and I assumed this subcommittee,
we made that decision that we were going to do those things.
However, I am still in an old buggy whip attitude. There were
63 in my room in F-212, 3rd Marine Division [Laughter.]
Senator Murray. Are you recommending that, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Burns. No, I am not. [Laughter.]
It caused some problems every now and again. [Laughter.]
BARRACKS FUNDING
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just quickly follow up on that last question. A 40-
year program, is that aggressive? I do not understand. You are
describing a 40-year program to meet the housing needs. That
does not feel to me like a very aggressive program.
General Higginbotham. Well, the problem is it is all about
money. And so what we have got to be able to do in the Marine
Corps, in terms of our total obligational authority, is that we
have got to balance that money with readiness--in this case,
readiness, modernization and our military construction family
programs. And so part of our challenge today is that we have
aging equipment. As an example, our amphibious assault vehicle
is now 27 years old. We are going to have to spend $309 million
here in the next couple of years for an improvement program,
that we call a Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and
rebuild to standard (RAM/RS) program, to be able to extend the
life of that vehicle out to 36 years, until the Advanced
Amphibious Assault Vehicle comes on line.
And so that is part of our significant problem today. And
to be able to fund our spares today; our repairables has
increased 104 percent in cost just during the last several
years. And so we have gone from $82 for an average equipment
repair order up to $190-some at this point in time.
So, it is readiness that has taken more of our money. And
so modernization certainly is the central theme to all of this.
We have got to do something about that. But, clearly, the
Commandant is committed to making sure that our marines have
equipment that works, that it is ready, because that is the
true indicator of quality of life, is to bring them home alive.
And so we have got to be able to split that money out into
those different pots.
Senator Murray. Right, I understand. It is a difficult
challenge, but it still has a lot to do with retention and
morale. And we need to really, I think, aggressively go after
it.
INCREMENTAL FUNDING
Mr. Secretary, let me just ask you if you were consulted on
the idea of incrementally funding the military construction
program and, if so, did you recommend funding the plan?
Mr. Pirie. I was not consulted prior to that decision being
made. After it was made, we were consulted on how much of a
safety factor might be appropriate to put in. But we were not
given the opportunity to argue for the reversal of the
decision.
Senator Murray. Okay. Admiral Smith, let me just follow up.
You were talking about talking with the general contractors,
and they said that it was going to cost more money. Did they
define exactly why for you, so we can understand that?
Admiral Smith. Their concerns, of course, are, in any
business deal, the uncertainty associated with it. And since of
course we always pay them after they have done the work, they
will generally have to go to a bank or some other lending
institution to obtain financing. And of course the bankers tend
to look askance at anything in their contract against which
their borrowing the money that might not get them paid on time
or might not get them the funds for the work that has been
performed. So, again, from their perspective, it is more
uncertainty in the deal than had historically been there.
Senator Murray. So, there is not anything concrete except
for perhaps financial loan interest?
Admiral Smith. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. Okay. Mr. Secretary, if the fiscal year
2000 military construction budget is restricted to $5.4
billion, without incremental funding, it will obviously result
in many projects going unfunded for at least a year. In your
opinion, what impact is that going to have on retention and
readiness and morale in the Navy and Marine Corps?
Mr. Pirie. Well, it is pretty hard to quantify it exactly,
Senator Murray. But it is not going to help it. It will not be
good. And if we are not given the appropriations and
authorization for what we have asked for in terms of
appropriations, it is going to essentially defer the rest of
those things 9 months to a year.
Senator Murray. As you know, one of my primary concerns has
been quality-of-life issues. And my concern is that these are
going to be left behind, with very limited resources, if we
prioritize pier modernization and environmental compliance or
maintenance and repair. And I know that you can point to your
plan to fund bachelor enlisted quarters, but those are very
expensive projects. Assuming that we find this advanced
appropriations notion untenable and find we have to fully fund
projects at a much lower number than any of us want, how are
you going to prioritize some of these quality-of-life issues?
Mr. Pirie. I think, at the moment, we have provided a list
in the order that they were originally developed at our
planning board. And we will probably simply defer the rest of
the projects that do not come under that funding cap until
either very late in the fiscal year or the beginning of next
fiscal year.
General Higginbotham. Ms. Murray, may I make a comment
about that?
Senator Murray. Yes, General.
General Higginbotham. We have 23 projects for the fiscal
year 2000. And if we do not get the incremental funding, now we
are going from $161.5 million down to $40.4 million, that
means, out of 23 projects, perhaps we can fund maybe four,
maybe five.
Senator Murray. How are you going to prioritize those?
General Higginbotham. We have a prioritized list at this
point that we can provide for the record if you like.
[The information follows:]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative
Planning and Design Authorized Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLANNING AND DESIGN.......................... 11,873 11,873
P-536.................................. MCAS New River, NC...................... AIRCRAFT TAXIWAY ADDITION.................... 495 12,368
P-076.................................. MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. INTEGRATED COMMUNICATIONS HUB................ 3,623 15,991
P-481.................................. MCAS Yuma, AZ........................... LAND ACQUISITION............................. 13,731 29,722
P-495.................................. MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, CA............. BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS................... 18,195 47,917
P-063.................................. MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION BUILDING................ 6,155 54,072
P-568.................................. MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. MAINTENANCE/OPS FACILITY..................... 7,986 62,058
P-122.................................. MCB Hawaii.............................. CONTROL TOWER................................ 5,486 67,544
P-935.................................. MCB Camp Lejeune, NC.................... ROAD AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION................ 8,339 75,883
P-022.................................. MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. TACTICAL VEHICLE MAINT FAC................... 8,573 84,456
P-413.................................. MCAS Beaufort, SC....................... CORROSION CONTROL FACILITY................... 8,275 92,731
P-067.................................. MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. ARMORY....................................... 2,494 95,225
P-920.................................. MCLB Barstow, CA........................ TEST TRACK/TEST POND FACILITY................ 4,445 99,670
P-619.................................. MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, CA............. TACTICAL VEHICLE MAINT FAC................... 13,282 112,952
P-919.................................. MCLB Albany, GA......................... ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT SHOP................... 5,960 118,912
P-478.................................. MCB Quantico, VA........................ BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS................... 19,802 138,714
P-645.................................. MCAS New River, NC...................... FAMILY SERVICES CENTER....................... 1,271 139,985
P-437.................................. MCAS Yuma, AZ........................... CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER ADDITION............ 2,494 142,479
P-119.................................. MCB Camp Lejeune, NC.................... PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER...................... 4,026 146,505
P-069.................................. MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. SNCO ACADEMY, BEQ............................ 9,266 155,771
P-285.................................. MCRD San Diego, CA...................... PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER...................... 3,044 158,815
P-384.................................. MCAS Beaufort, SC....................... ARMY......................................... 1,700 160,515
P-535.................................. MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, CA............. CAST TRAINER ADDITION........................ 1,588 162,103
P-500.................................. MCAS New River, NC...................... PROPERTY CONTROL FACILITY.................... 3,437 165,540
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pirie. The budget submit lists these projects in order.
So, that is the one we will work off for the moment, Senator
Murray.
General Higginbotham. But the point is that with that
lesser amount of funding, that will have a serious impact on
our ability to execute this 10-year plan that I am talking
about now. But I also want to alleviate one of your concerns in
terms of how we are committing our money. In the President's
budget in 1996, we had identified $97.2 million for the fiscal
year 2000, and we have committed $161.5 million. So, you can
see that is an appreciable increase.
And so General Krulak is very committed to funding quality
of life and these construction programs. But we also feel like
we need a little help to kind of improve our current status.
PUGET SOUND PROJECTS
Senator Murray. Let me ask you one specific Washington
State issue, which is a dredging project in the fiscal year
2000 budget at Puget Sound and a D-5 missile support facility
at the Puget Sound Shipyard. This is the first phase of a major
project to modernize both the Trident fleet and the Submarine
Base at Bangor. The Navy is also reportedly considering
homeporting additional Trident submarines at Submarine Base
Bangor. Can you tell me the scope and status of the proposals
and what impact they are going to have on Kitsap County in my
home State?
Mr. Pirie. We can provide I think the detailed information
for the record, Senator Murray. But it is true that we are
doing considerable dredging and building a pier at Puget Sound
Shipyard in support of carrier homeporting, and the Bangor
construction project, as you know. As to the impact on the
county, I will have to take that for the record.
[The information follows:]
The President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget includes a Puget Sound
dredging project (MCON P-338, $14.85 million) and a D-5 missile support
facility (MCON P-321, $6 million). MCON P-338 is sited at the Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton to support CVN berth depth
requirements and is not in any way connected with TRIDENT fleet
requirements. The MCON P-321 project is sited at Bangor, not at the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and provides utility and site improvements
to prepare for a limited D5 capability at Bangor.
Regarding homeporting additional TRIDENT submarines at Bangor, the
Navy is still studying final homeporting alternatives. However, the
Navy has determined that the final number of TRIDENT submarines
homeported in Bangor will not exceed the current number of 8.
Senator Murray. Okay. I would appreciate getting that back.
And I have some other questions that I would like to submit for
the record, Mr. Chairman.
MILCON FUNDING LEVELS
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Murray.
Going back to what you said, General. You know, as near as
4 years ago, I think this MILCON expenditure was between $10
billion and $11 billion. Now we are down around $6 billion.
That is what I alluded to a while ago in my statement, that the
shifting of funds in the Department of Defense concerns me. Not
only the mission of military construction, but then we are
shifting those monies away. I am not real sure that our costs--
we may be putting more projects on line, but then are we, at
this funding level, going to be able to fulfill those
obligations in 3, 4 and 5 years?
I see these costs starting to build up. Now, do you
understand where I am coming from? I am probably not making
myself too clear, but I am saying that it looks like we are
going to run into a balloon-type of situation here in trying to
maintain our funding levels.
Mr. Pirie. Clearly, if we push a great deal of the 2000-
2001 appropriations into 2001, there is a substantial bow wave,
yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Is that the way you see this?
General Higginbotham. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. I just do not want to get us in a position
to where we have to come back and it would be more costly just
to complete the projects as we pushed them out. I would like to
go back to put another billion dollars in here and take care of
some obligations that we can pay for right now, and complete
some of these projects, and still have a master plan of where
we want to go.
Do you have anything against that? I may have to wrestle my
chairman a little bit.
Mr. Pirie. Well, we can use all the help we can get, Mr.
Chairman. [Laughter.]
Senator Burns. I thought maybe that may be the answer.
Mr. Pirie. I do not need to conceal my feeling about that.
The projects that we have ongoing now are, by and large,
fully funded. We have one or two incrementally funded projects
and so forth. And those in fact were protected in this budget.
That is, the full increments of the completion costs were
protected.
Senator Burns. But we have accelerated that, though, with
this.
Mr. Pirie. But there are others that have been pushed out,
sir.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE [BRAC]
Senator Burns. Yes. Now, tell me about--we have now
completed, what, the fourth round of BRAC--savings there. There
are some savings, I assume, from what you have told us. I am
wondering, whenever we start crowding that out, what would be
our future obligations if we have another round of BRAC.
Mr. Pirie. Well, we will clearly have to put in the initial
seed money up front to finance all of the expenses of BRAC,
which include the moving of people, the buyouts and early
retirements, and those kinds of programs, the building of new
facilities at receiving installations that get activities from
BRAC installations and so forth. And Admiral Smith has an
eloquent line on how much you have to put up front to make the
eventual savings and his concerns about how much we would have
to put up for some additional rounds.
Admiral Smith. Sir, in my previous position in the Navy, I
was the Chief of Naval Operations' Civil Engineer. And so I was
involved in the programming and the early project management of
the first four rounds of BRAC. And in those first four rounds,
the Navy expended something like a little over $10 billion to
realize the annualized savings of about $2.5 billion a year.
And we found that we stuck to our original projections pretty
well in terms of the costs and the benefits.
So, our estimate was about $4 up front for every dollar per
year you would save over the long haul. And of course, those
$2.5 billion a year in savings are in perpetuity. I mean we are
no longer paying base operations costs to run the Naval Station
in Charleston, that has been closed.
As we go into the next round, since we of course picked a
lot of low-hanging fruit in the first 178 realignments and
closures, our estimate is it may cost us more, perhaps 4 and a
half dollars, for every dollar per year of savings. So, we are
watching that very closely as we go forward into hopefully
another two rounds of BRAC in the future.
Mr. Pirie. That means you recoup your initial expenses in 4
and a half years. And, after that, everything that you get is
free and clear.
Senator Burns. And we are to complete those by what, 2001?
Mr. Pirie. 2001 for the last round of BRAC, yes, sir.
Admiral Smith. Yes, sir. And as Secretary Pirie correctly
puts in his statement, the big savings are accrued when you get
to the realign and close point. After that, the cleanup and
dispose, which is where we are on many properties right now,
most of your savings have already been realized when you come
to that point.
Senator Burns. Secretary Pirie, we had a hearing and we
have discussed many times the cost of cleanup. And I assume
that we are moving forward on that and we are staying within
projected costs?
Mr. Pirie. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are. In fact, we have
realized, over the course of the past few years, some
significant savings over projected costs because of various
kinds of efficiencies--negotiations with regulators to clean up
to standards of use that the community is going to make rather
than to national park standards, and other kinds of cost
avoidances. So, we are on track to complete the projected
cleanups.
Admiral Smith.
Admiral Smith. Yes, sir. No, I cannot really add anything
to that. As a matter of fact, we have found that in working
with the communities and the State and Federal regulators, we
have actually been able to save money over original estimates
on the cleanups.
Senator Burns. Well, the reason I ask you about that is
because, basically, we have incrementally funded BRAC accounts.
We have done it in that respect. And we still have some
obligations to pick up there between 2000 and 2001. I am still
concerned about this incremental thing. That bothers me a lot.
I just feel like we are going to get out there another 5 or 10
years, and all at once we are going to be hit right between the
eyes with a balloon-type thing. And I would like to prevent
that or some problems down the line.
DEMOLITION PROGRAM
Last year, we discussed the Navy's demolition program. It
would appear that the program has been quite successful, from
your reports. Do you have any idea how much we have saved on
the demolition of some of those old buildings? Have you put a
pencil to that? I know that is sort of a hypothetical question.
It is probably into an area where you cannot. But how
successful has it been, Admiral?
Admiral Smith. Sir, I love the demolition programs.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burns. You just like to tear up things. [Laughter.]
Admiral Smith. Yes, sir. I guess my mother would have told
you that I was a destructive little boy.
Mr. Pirie. Seabees with bulldozers, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Admiral Smith. As you are probably aware, we have
demolished over 6 million square feet of old buildings. And we
have found a lot of things. We have found, almost
serendipitously, that it has saved us a lot of money. For the
most part, they were World War II or pre-World War II
buildings. I would tell you, as an engineer, those temporary
wood frame barracks buildings we built during the Second World
War, that were only supposed to last 20 years, are still as
sound as the dollar. I mean they are going wonderful. And I
have no idea when they are going to come down.
Senator Burns. Can you give us an idea of basically what
are we talking about? What buildings? Give me an idea of which
ones.
Admiral Smith. If you will remember the barracks that we
built during the Second World War, most of which have been--
they were two-story, wood frame structures, long, skinny, with
central heads in them. Those convert to office spaces very
well. And virtually all of them have been converted to office
spaces now. Those are typical of the genre.
We have also torn down production facilities, warehouse-
type facilities. It has really helped us in our consolidation
efforts in the Navy. The unexpected benefit is not only do you
get rid of an eyesore and a building that perhaps contains
asbestos and other hazardous substances, but also now you do
not have to run a steam line to it to heat it in the
wintertime. And you do not have to replace that old building,
so that the roof is now worth more than the building is.
So, it has been an enormous success for us. It has helped
us a very great deal. We are still scheduled to tear down about
another 3 million to 4 million square feet over the next 2
years. But if you go to some of our Naval stations, for
example, the Naval Air Station at Breezy Point, it has really
never looked better. We had forgotten how pretty our bases were
until we tore down a lot of these old, unsightly buildings.
Senator Burns. How much is out there yet to do?
Admiral Smith. Our last Navy-wide survey said that we
needed something like 10 million square feet demolished. I
would tell you, sir, as an old public works officer, that
people did not think they could get any money to do it, and
they never really had the money to do it, so I do not think
they really went as far in looking for demolition projects and
candidates as they are now.
If I could also go back to kind of your first opening
statement. I have resisted the impulse to go and ask people how
much money they have saved, because there are unscrupulous
people out there in our budgeting process who would take those
savings. And we are trying to encourage our base commanders,
honestly, to use that money for other good things, because we
worry they do not quite have enough. [Laughter.]
So, maybe that is more candor than I should be showing
here, Secretary Pirie. [Laughter.]
Mr. Pirie. That is very subtlely stated. [Laughter.]
Admiral Smith. Yes.
Senator Burns. Very subtle. Would you like to respond to
that, Mr. Secretary, in some way or other? That is a nice shade
of red, by the way. [Laughter.]
Mr. Pirie. I am not the budgeteer, sir. But I would point
out that we also want to get these buildings down before they
land on the Historical Register. [Laughter.]
Admiral Smith. Absolutely.
Mr. Pirie. Because that gives us some problems, as well.
And, to be honest, it is not all World War II-vintage
buildings. Some of the things we built in the sixties are
looking pretty ugly now, too, and need to be done away with.
General.
MARINE CORPS DEMOLITION PROGRAM
General Higginbotham. Yes, sir, I would like to comment on
it, as well. Since 1994, we have demolished 3.9 million square
feet in our facilities. Last year, in 1998, 1 million square
feet. This year, another 1.1 million square feet. And, by the
year 2000, we will have demolished what we need to demolish.
But we sort of look at it in terms of cost to savings. It
is about a 5-to-1 ratio. And so, starting your sixth year, then
you will realize cost savings associated with it.
Senator Burns. I guess just to make the point, how many
Quonset huts have you got left at Camp Pendleton?
General Higginbotham. A whole bunch.
Senator Burns. Have you?
General Higginbotham. That is part of that $1 million this
year. But when I talk about demolition, the buildings that we
want to destroy, you know, that we no longer need.
Senator Burns. Well, I still think we have got some at MCRD
San Diego, do we not?
Admiral Smith. Sure.
General Higginbotham. Yes, sir, there are some.
Admiral Smith. I believe there are some at Quantico, even,
still.
General Higginbotham. Right.
Senator Burns. Well, Quantico, I do not worry too much
about them. I just worry about Camp Pendleton and Marine Corps
Recruit Depot [MCRD]. But I noticed when I was out there some
time ago that most of them had been boarded up, though. They
just have not been removed.
General Higginbotham. Right.
Senator Burns. And those will finally be removed?
General Higginbotham. Yes, sir. In fact, if you go out to
the Infantry Training School now, where historically you will
see a lot of those old Quonset huts, we have new BEQ's being
built as we speak. And so a lot of those buildings are in fact
being replaced.
QUALITY OF LIFE
Senator Burns. Any other comments? That is about the end of
my questions. And I know we will probably have some more before
we finally make it through this process. We would like just to
keep the telephone lines open. But I think Senator Murray has
expressed some concern, and I think it is a well-founded
concern, on the incremental. I am not real sure I get a read
from my own judgment. I cannot project out there, 5 and 6 and
10 years from now, the problems that we may run into,
especially how that will affect if we have another round or
BRAC.
I will tell you that I am going to go to the Armed Services
Committee, and I am going to work very closely with Chairman
Stevens, because the shift of funds and what we have to do and
what we are expected to do in the quality of life, such as day
care centers, we have pointed more to families than we ever
have before, in medical facilities and medical care, those
concern me greatly. And the shift away, to use that money
somewhere else, even though it is in the Department of Defense,
concerns me.
Because I feel that we initiated a mission to improve that
quality of life some 5 or 6 years ago, and with the help of
Senator Murray. And I do not want to abandon that because we
are shifting money away from our mission in military
construction to other areas and what some would view as of
doubtful expenditure. So, I am going to try to get you a little
more money, to be right honest with you. I know we kind of beat
up on you every now and again, but I think retention right now
is utmost, and the morale of the troops. I know that is very,
very important when you have to put together a fighting force.
And that is what we have to maintain.
So, I thank you for coming this morning.
Do you have any other more questions?
Senator Murray. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Burns. Thank you. As we work on this, we will be
working very closely with you. I thank you for coming this
morning.
Mr. Pirie. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
[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
navy funding
Question. Secretary Pirie, last year you informed me that the Navy
spends approximately 1.7 to 1.8 percent of plant replacement value per
year on facility maintenance. Has that number changed with the fiscal
year 2000 Budget.
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes funds in Real
Property Maintenance and Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense
appropriations. Combining these accounts, the percentage remains
essentially the same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted level.
navy public/private ventures (ppv)
Question. Secretary Pirie, with respect to family housing
privatization, I am concerned about Sailors and their families paying
more to live in one of these projects than housing provided through
traditional military construction. What assurances can you give me that
they will not have out of pocket expenses?
Answer. The Department of the Navy's goal for housing privatization
projects is to ensure that rent plus costs associated with average
utility consumption does not exceed the member's Basic Allowance for
Housing (BAH). Privatization projects are being developed in accordance
with this goal. Furthermore, safeguards will be incorporated to ensure
that future rents to be paid by members will be linked with BAH growth.
If a family consumes excessive utilities, they may incur out-of-pocket
expenses.
Question. What is the average lease period with the developers for
these types of Navy privatization deals?
Answer. Most projects involving the privatization of existing
Government housing are anticipated to be 50-year deals. There may be
some projects of shorter duration. The Navy is also using 15-year terms
for Limited Partnership deals for housing on private land where our
equity contribution is limited to cash. We remain flexible to consider
other arrangements that would be mutually beneficial to all parties.
Question. How will installations with family housing privatization
ventures be treated in future rounds of BRAC?
Answer. Installations with family housing privatization ventures
will be treated no differently than any other installations (i.e., they
will neither be penalized nor treated favorably). The Navy is
developing its PPV plans in order to maintain the ability to terminate
such agreements in the event it becomes necessary.
navy construction execution
Question. Secretary Pirie, the Navy has greatly improved their
construction project execution the past several years. How will advance
appropriations and phased funding impact your execution?
Answer. The challenges that face the Navy in executing this budget
are centered on project and funds management. Successful execution of
the program will depend on our ability to accurately project outlay
streams for each project, and to optimize the allocation of funds for
each project based on the projected outlay stream and on the date of
award.
Our projected outlay streams have to accommodate material
procurement (including any long-lead time items), job phasing, work
scheduling, etc. to accurately reflect optimum contractor performance
as if funds were to be obligated for the full value of the contract.
Projected outlay streams then have to be time-phased against
projected dates of award and the date of the availability of the
advance appropriations, in order to determine the appropriate level of
funding to be obligated against the contract.
In addition, actual work-in-place and contract expenditures must be
monitored to ensure that sufficient funds are available throughout the
year to preclude any work stoppages or contract terminations. Award
dates for subsequent projects will have to be managed to maintain
availability of sufficient funds for such purposes.
navy construction execution
Question. With some of the BRAC money split between fiscal year
2000 and fiscal year 2001, how will that affect implementation of the
1995 BRAC decisions?
Answer. There will be no effect on the implementation of the 1995
BRAC decision. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation request of $211.4
million is only for that portion expected to be actually spent in
fiscal year 2000, plus an additional factor for unforeseen actions. The
Navy has already completed 93 percent (165 of 178) of all closures and
realignments, and will complete an additional eight by the end of
fiscal year 1999, four in fiscal year 2000, and one in fiscal year
2001.
Question. Explain the Navy's rationale for phasing the supervision,
inspection, and overhead (SIOH) costs over a five-year period when the
projects are phased in two years?
Answer. SIOH annualization allowed the Department to realize a one-
time savings over the four-year implementation period by reducing the
amounts of SIOH that are obligated but not yet expended.
SIOH annualization was developed as a permanent change in the
manner in which the Department will budget for such costs. Phasing the
funding over five years aligns the SIOH funding with historic MILCON
outlays. SIOH is obligated against a MILCON project based on the
obligated amount of the contract or work order. SIOH is expended (or
outlayed) from a project at the same rate as the construction contract
or work order is outlayed.
On the other hand, the use of advance appropriations to phase
project costs over two years is a one-time effort to satisfy critical
readiness shortfalls within the Department of Defense in fiscal year
2000.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Hutchison
cleanup at dallas naval air station
Question. It appears the successful redevelopment of the Dallas
Naval Air Station (DNAS) is being threatened. Timing is particularly
critical since the City of Dallas successfully completed a long-term
lease agreement for a tenant corporation. This project has the
potential to make DNAS one of the BRAC ``success stories'' by reusing
the base and providing 1,500 jobs. Unfortunately, it could also become
one of the BRAC ``horror stories'' if this opportunity is lost. In
addition, some consideration should be given to the fact that most of
the DNAS property has been leased from the City of Dallas for $1 per
year for over 50 years.
When will the Navy complete the environmental investigation and
clean up work plan?
Answer. The environmental investigation is complete and a clean-up
schedule has been established which calls for cleanup to be completed
in fiscal year 2001. The City of Dallas has been provided the
opportunity to begin reuse of the leased property; in addition, the
Navy is willing to work with the City on any specific case that may
hinder redevelopment.
The Navy continues to support the reuse efforts of the cities of
Dallas and Grand Prairie and is committed to a successful transition
from military to civilian use of the former Air Station.
timing of cleanup
Question. The Navy is now scheduled to turn over the property on
May 10, 1999. Is there any reason to think the Navy will not meet this
commitment?
Answer. The Navy is fully committed to terminating the lease for
property at NAS Dallas by the date in question. Notification was given
to the City of Dallas in a letter dated March 10, 1999 that the leased
property would be returned to them by means of lease cancellation on
May 10, 1999. The Texas Air National Guard (TANG) continues to occupy
facilities at Dallas while construction of their new facilities is
nearing completion at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Ft.
Worth, Texas. The leased property cannot be terminated until TANG fully
relocates which is scheduled for April 30, 1999. However, the Navy has
notified the City of Dallas that a license can be issued to begin reuse
for any facility not currently occupied by TANG.
clear zone at naval air station dallas
Question. What is the Navy's plan for the ``clear zone?'' Since the
commercial value of the whole property includes the clear zone (just as
the Navy needed it for DNAS), will the Navy include the property in the
land transfer to the City of Dallas? Is there any reason (or
possibility) the Navy would instead offer the clear zone for open
public sale?
Answer. Because the Naval Air Station Dallas, Texas, was approved
for closure under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990,
Public Law, 101-510, as amended, the Navy must comply with prescribed
federal real property and base closure disposal procedures under the
Federal Property Management Regulations and applicable base closure
statutes. BRAC law prohibits the Navy from including Navy owned ``clear
zone'' property as part of the property being returned to the City of
Dallas by means of lease termination. The cities can acquire the
property by public benefit conveyance, negotiated sale, or if none of
the previous methods are applicable, then through an economic
development conveyance which allows a reduction of the sale price by
incorporating discounts for certain development costs and job creation.
The City of Grand Prairie has formally contacted the Navy and the
Department of the Interior concerning a public benefit conveyance of
the runway protection (clear) zone located north of Jefferson Boulevard
for park and recreation purposes in order to protect the property from
incompatible development. The City of Dallas is working with Grand
Prairie for preservation of the lighting system and that will be
addressed in the public benefit conveyance application. The Department
of the Interior may recommend this conveyance at no cost.
The City of Dallas has also notified the Navy that it is willing to
pursue conveyance of other Navy-owned property of interest to the City
via a negotiated sale. This method of acquisition requires a payment of
fair market value to the Government. We are in the initial stages of
this negotiated sale process and will be working with the City and the
General Services Administration to facilitate the transfer.
perchlorate contamination expense
Question. There is evidence of perchlorate contamination in surface
and ground water around the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant
McGregor, Texas. Although there is no current federally recognized safe
limit of perchlorate, a draft Environment Protection Agency report
recommended 32 parts per billion (ppb) as the limit for safe drinking
water. It is my understanding that onsite and offsite testing found
concentrations of the rocket-fuel oxidant as high as 22,000 ppb in
onsite surface water and 5,500 ppb in boundary surface water. Sites
toward Lake Belton measured 670 and 190 ppb. Fortunately, there is not
yet any known contamination of the public drinking water.
How extensive is the perchlorate contamination on and around the
NWIRP?
Answer. The perchlorate investigation began in August 1998. The
ongoing investigation is very extensive and will identify the vertical
and lateral extent of the perchlorate plume. Sufficient data should be
available in the fall of 1999 to fully determine the extent of the
perchlorate contamination.
Question. What is the Navy's plan to monitor and clean up the
contamination?
Answer. To insure public protection, the Navy has sampled surface
water at various locations on and off the facility property. No
confirmatory sample analysis at the site where the earlier
concentration of perchlorate was found to be 22,000 ppb was performed
because the seep was dry, i.e., no flow. The Navy sampled and found no
detectable concentration of perchlorate in all of the raw water
intakes, located downstream on Lake Belton and Lake Waco, for the City
of Waco's and the City of Temple's potable water systems.
Perchlorate has been detected in water samples taken from the
streams leaving the facility and flowing into Lake Belton and Lake
Waco. In response, the Navy conducts monthly monitoring of the streams
at strategic locations between the facility and the raw water intakes.
In addition and contingent upon the property owner's permission, the
Navy will also install wells within a 1-mile radius of the facility, as
well as, along the watershed of each stream/creek flowing into Lake
Waco and Lake Belton (Harris Creek, South Bosque River, and Station
Creek). The Navy plans to conduct periodic sampling and monitoring of
these wells to determine the concentration of perchlorate in the ground
water.
The technology for clean up of perchlorate is in its infancy. Two
pilot projects for perchlorate clean up are actively being pursued for
demonstration at McGregor under the Department of Defense Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program. In addition, an
Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, comprised of EPA, DOD and
industry representatives is conducting toxicity evaluations and cleanup
technologies to establish realistic risk levels and exposure limits.
Recently, the Navy discovered a perchlorate source in the soil
within Area M on NWIRP McGregor. Samples are being taken to determine
the vertical and lateral extent of contamination. During June, 1999,
the Navy will begin cleanup of the site by removing the contamination
source.
navy plans for mcgregor nwirf
Question. Is there any impact on the Navy's program to decommission
the site and cede it to the city of McGregor for industrial
development?
Answer. Prior to any property transfer, the extent and magnitude of
all perchlorate and other contamination must be determined and a
cleanup plan put in place. Perchlorate is one of many possible chemical
contaminants being investigated. The existing perchlorate contamination
and ongoing clean up is not expected to impact the property transfer.
However, there are many other sites which may contain contamination
sources that need to be investigated prior to property transfer. The
Navy expects that all investigations will be completed during the year
2001.
navy cooperation with brazos river authority
Question. How is the Navy cooperating with the Brazos River
Authority, area health districts, water suppliers, and cities who have
a valid interest in all aspects of this contamination?
Answer. Yes. The Navy met with the Brazos River Authority, the
Mayors of municipalities in Central Texas, EPA and Congressman Chet
Edwards on March 9, 1999. The Navy also met with the Brazos River
Authority, the City of Waco and the City of Temple on March 18-19, 1999
and March 25, 1999. All meetings have been productive with the Navy
providing full disclosure of all data they possess on perchlorate
contamination. The Navy plans to continue its good working relationship
with the Brazos River Authority and all stakeholders and provide all
information concerning perchlorate contamination.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Stevens
adak property disposal and reuse
Question. Secretary Pirie, what is the status of the ordnance
investigation of the former Naval Air Station, Adak?
Answer. Navy has completed ordnance characterization of the main
developed core (``downtown'') area, approximately 2,500 acres, and no
further investigation or clearance of this area is required. The Navy
has also completed the clearance of the only confirmed minefield site
near Clam Lagoon. Other proposed minefield sites identified by World
War II Island defensive plans have been investigated. No evidence of
mines or other ordnance related items were discovered.
The Navy has formulated a work plan for investigating other areas
identified in World War II documentation as potential impact ranges,
combat ranges, ammunition handling/storage areas, and gun emplacements.
That work will be undertaken during 1999. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency Region X, and the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation have expressed concerns that the Navy work
plan will not yield sufficient information to enable property transfer
decisions. The issues involved are part of an emerging national policy
discussion about the appropriate investigation and clearance of
property with potential ordnance contamination. Discussions are
underway with those agencies to attempt to resolve those concerns in a
manner that would enable property transfer.
Question. Will the Navy meet the necessary regulatory requirements
in order to transfer the property to the Aleut Corporation or Local
Reuse Authority by the end of the year?
Answer. No. All environmental cleanup actions required by
applicable regulations will be completed by the end of this year except
ordnance issues outside the ``downtown'' area. There will not be a
Record of Decision (ROD) for those issues until 2001 at the earliest.
A ROD for Operable Unit A, which primarily addresses chemical and
petroleum issues, but also includes ordnance within the ``downtown''
area, has been drafted and is pending signature by the Navy and
concurrence by the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region
X, and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. This ROD
will identify the remedial actions required pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as well as, a separate agreement between the Navy and the
State of Alaska concerning petroleum cleanup issues. The remedial
actions required by this ROD will all be completed, or, in the case of
petroleum recovery systems, installed and operating properly by the end
of this year.
Operable Unit B consists of environmental cleanup of ordnance
issues outside the ``downtown'' developed area. The Navy and the
regulators have agreed on a proposed time line to complete a ROD for
Operable Unit B, which shows completion in early 2001. However, the
Navy and the regulators have not yet agreed that the Navy proposed
approach to ordnance characterization is sufficient. Discussions are
ongoing to attempt to resolve those differences.
Question. What will be the cost of extending the island support
services contract for an additional year while the ordnance situation
is resolved?
Answer. The cost of the current island services contract is
approximately $15.7 million per year, and it is scheduled to terminate
March 31, 2000. A one-year extension at the same scope would cost
approximately the same.
However, it will not be necessary for the Navy to operate the
island support services at the current scope to support further
ordnance characterization and/or clearance activities if required
beyond the 1999 field season. In the event that additional field work
is required, such work would be supported from vessels or from self-
contained base camps to the maximum extent possible due to the
remoteness of the areas involved. Accordingly, the Navy is prepared to
discontinue operation of island services at the current scope by the
end of March 2000, and either turn such operations over to the Adak
Reuse Corporation or reduce operations to the minimum required for Navy
purposes.
The Navy advised The Aleut Corporation (TAC) and the Adak Reuse
Corporation (ARC) of these plans in November 1998. The Navy has had a
number of transition planning meetings with TAC and ARC
representatives, and has notified ARC that they should plan to assume
operation of island support services by March 2000 in order to continue
availability of such services to support reuse.
Operation of island support services by the Navy at the current
scope beyond the planned transition in March 2000 is not needed to
support Navy requirements.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
washington state questions
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget includes a dredging project
at Puget Sound and a D5 missile support facility at the Puget Sound
shipyard. I understand that this is the first phase of a major project
to modernize both the Trident fleet and the submarine base at Bangor.
The Navy also reportedly is considering home porting additional Trident
submarines at Submarine Base Bangor. Can you tell me the scope and
status of the proposals, and what impact they will have on Kitsap
County?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget includes a Puget
Sound dredging project (MCON P-338, $14.85 million) and a D-5 missile
support facility (MCON P-321, $6 million). MCON P-338 is sited at the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton to support CVN berth depth
requirements and is not in any way connected with TRIDENT fleet
requirements. The MCON P-321 project is sited at Bangor, not at the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and provides utility and site improvements
to prepare for a limited D5 capability at Bangor.
Regarding homeporting additional TRIDENT submarines at Bangor, the
Navy is still studying final homeporting alternatives. However, the
Navy has determined that the final number of TRIDENT submarines
homeported in Bangor will not exceed the current number of 8.
Question. Will the current work force at the Puget Sound shipyard
be sufficient to carry out this work, or is it likely that the work
force will have to be expanded? Do you have any estimate of the number
of jobs this project could create?
Answer. The dredging project at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (NSY) is
for CVNs. The modernization at SUBASE Bangor associated with the D-5
missile system is primarily at the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific
and involves upgrades/changes to the handling and storage facilities,
as well as, some work at the Explosive Handling Wharf (EHW). Although
there are some major modifications, they will be relatively transparent
to the rest of the base and will result in no personnel changes.
There will be approximately $15 million in contracts awarded during
fiscal year 2000-2005 for military construction and equipment
installation associated with the D-5 project. Initial Operational
Capability (IOC) for D-5 in Bangor will be May 2002.
The current Navy plan will move two Atlantic Fleet SSBNs to SUBBASE
Bangor in fiscal year 2003. This shift to Bangor will coincide with the
removal from strategic service of two SSBNs currently at Bangor.
Although the final disposition of the SSBNs removed from strategic
service has yet to be determined, they will likely continue to be in a
shipyard. The net result is that there will be no appreciable change in
the number of industrial personnel assigned to SUBBASE Bangor.
Based on current projections, the Puget Sound NSY current work
force level will be sufficient to support the depot level maintenance
requirements of Bangor homeported SSBNs. This includes a SSBN fiscal
year 2000 Overhaul/D5 backfit and a SSBN fiscal year 2001 Overhaul/D5
backfit.
Question. What is the total military construction cost estimate and
timetable for modernizing the Submarine Base at Bangor?
Answer. Projects currently on the MCON FYDP for SUBASE Bangor are:
fiscal year 2004 P-199 BEQ $20.7M and fiscal year 2005 P-188 Lower Base
Fitness Facility $0.9M.
Question. If additional submarines were homeported in Washington
State, how many additional military personnel would be based at Bangor?
What impact would that have on other military construction needs in the
area, such as barracks, family housing, schools and the like?
Answer. The Navy is still studying final homeporting alternatives
in Washington State. However, the Navy has determined that the final
number of TRIDENT submarines homeported in Bangor will not exceed the
current number of 8. Any operational, personnel support, housing, and
school facility impacts on Kitsap County due to homeporting changes
would be analyzed as part of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process (if required) and required facilities would be
identified, developed, and programmed through appropriate military
construction projects.
Question. Has a decision been made yet on where the Jimmy Carter
nuclear submarine will be homeported? Is Bangor under consideration?
When will a decision be made? With the dredging project in this year's
budget, what other improvements would the Bangor Submarine Base need to
accommodate the Jimmy Carter?
Answer. A final decision on where to homeport U.S.S. Jimmy Carter
(SSN 23) has not been made. With a limited number of submarine assets
available to meet a variety of mission requirements, there are many
factors that must be weighed prior to reaching a final homeport
decision. Bangor is one of the Navy bases under consideration to be the
homeport for Jimmy Carter. I expect a decision to be made during fiscal
year 2000. The entire infrastructure must be evaluated to ensure that
the homeport can adequately support the ship.
advanced appropriations in milcon and its affect on bmar
Question. Mr. Pirie, in your testimony you talk about the Navy and
Marine's backlog of maintenance and repair. I know you've talked to
this Subcommittee about your backlog concerns in the past, and your
testimony indicates a genuine concern for the rate at which this is
growing. How do you think the proposed budgetary gimmick of advanced
appropriating will impact your backlog problem?
Answer. There will be no impact on the Real Property Maintenance
backlog if the Congress supports the Administration position on Advance
Appropriation of Military Construction, or otherwise fully funds
construction projects. The backlog will increase if any replacement/
modernization construction projects must be deferred.
backlog of maintenance and repair
Question. As you know, I'm very concerned about the quality of life
of our troops. I note that your backlog in family housing for the Navy
is $2.2 billion and $1.3 billion for the Marines. Maintenance and
repair takes on a much more human meaning when we're talking about the
actual residences of our servicemen and women and their families. What
would it take financially to actually begin chipping away at this major
shortfall?
Answer. Beginning in fiscal year 1994, the Navy began to make a
significant investment in the revitalization of the unsuitable military
family housing inventory. The Navy plans to eliminate the remaining
backlog of existing unsuitable homes by the end of fiscal year 2005
through replacement construction, improvement and repair projects and,
where feasible, privatization initiatives in CONUS.
The Marine Corps is chipping away significantly at the
revitalization backlog and has implemented a plan that will eliminate
this backlog by fiscal year 2012. This investment, coupled with the
moderate implementation of the Military Housing Privatization
Initiatives, will allow the Marine Corps to reduce the backlog by 66
percent to $439 million at the end of fiscal year 2005.
quality of life-defense account
Question. Mr. Pirie, I note in your fiscal year 2000 budget, $643
million of the Navy's Real Property Maintenance funds are included in
the Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense account. Can you tell the
Subcommittee why you've made this change and what you expect the
benefits will be?
Answer. The Department of Defense followed recent Congressional
practice and budgeted funds in Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense
instead of the Operations and Maintenance appropriations. The action
gives these funds special emphasis and encourages more management
flexibility by providing them a two-year life.
family housing
Question. Mr. Pirie, Everett, Washington was one of two public/
private venture projects that the Navy undertook in the last few years.
The Navy invested $5.9 million in a limited partnership with Dujardin
Development Company to manage 185 homes off base at an area called
Country Manor. Could you tell me how you rate the success of this
venture?
Answer. The Navy's limited partnership in Everett, Washington
successfully achieved the goals established for that project: 1)
construction of quality units; 2) establishment of below market rents;
and 3) minimize Navy's capital investment. The units are fully occupied
by Navy enlisted families, and there is a waiting list for these units.
While the rental rates for the units are less than the prevailing
market rates, junior enlisted families, especially those who have a
need for the three-and four-bedroom units, are absorbing a significant
portion of the total monthly shelter cost (rent and utilities). To
reduce the out-of-pocket cost burden for these families, the Navy
notified Congress of our intent to modify the existing limited
partnership agreement to include provisions for differential lease
payments. The Navy anticipates submitting a notification for funds
transfer and agreement modification in the spring of 1999.
Question. What lessons has the Navy learned from its experience
both here and at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi?
Answer. The Navy gained valuable experience in structuring a
public-private partnership during the execution of the projects in
Everett, Washington, and the Corpus Christi area, Texas, including:
--The importance of site location, desirability, environmental
conditions, availability of utilities and local zoning cannot
be overstated. The Navy's current projects require developers
to identify proposed sites at the Request for Qualification
stage, thereby providing more time to complete environmental
reviews and achieve any local approvals that may be required.
--Local governmental jurisdictions have a role to play in most
privatization projects. The Navy will work with local
governments, early in the process, to address and resolve
issues that could affect development.
--Financial risk and return analysis must be accurate and current
throughout the process as final agreements are negotiated. The
Navy's objective is quality, well--maintained and affordable
units. The developer's objective is profit. If the deal is
properly structured, both objectives can be met.
--An active residual management/stewardship function is essential to
the overall continuing success of a Navy public/private
ventures (PPV) project. Detailed processes and procedures for
every aspect of our residual management responsibility have
been established, and are continuously being updated and
refined.
Question. I understand we're to expect a Congressional notification
regarding a new limited partnership agreement for Everett. Can you
estimate when we'll be hearing from you on this?
Answer. The Navy submitted a pre-solicitation notification for a
follow-on Everett, Washington project on 1 October 1998. Proposals have
been received and are currently under evaluation. The Navy anticipates
submitting a funds transfer and project award notification in early
fiscal year 2000.
Question. In your testimony, you mention that the House MILCON
Subcommittee is concerned with your intent to solicit PPV projects in
Texas, San Diego, Lemoore, Maine and New Orleans. Can you comment on
the nature of the House concerns?
Answer. The House MILCON Subcommittee has expressed concerns about
the scope and pace of the Navy's housing privatization plan. They are
also concerned about how the Government's interests will be protected
over the course of the privatization agreement.
We are continuing to work with the Subcommittee to address their
concerns.
Question. Do you have any concerns that we are giving up too much
control, or that there may be security concerns with having a private
entity responsible for our military housing?
Answer. The Navy proposes to leverage our units and land assets
through a public-private entity (e.g., a Limited Liability Company
(LLC)) that includes the Navy. The Navy will be a partner in the deal,
and as such will be able to affect the key decisions made by the entity
over the long-term. Navy and Marine Corps families occupy these units
now, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Given these
long-term requirements, and our fiduciary responsibility to protect the
Government's assets, it is our intention to remain actively involved
and therefore retain a measure of control. We will include provisions
in our privatization agreements that afford protection to the
Government's interests.
We do not envision any security concerns associated with the
privatization of military housing. Most of the Navy's family housing
units being evaluated for privatization are either located in the
surrounding communities or at the perimeter of the Base. Given the
possibility that exists if unforeseen manpower reductions at an
installation cause the housing supply to exceed the military
requirements, the Marines are structuring the agreements with the
developer so only military members would be assigned to interior
parcels and all civilians to off-base or perimeter parcels.
Defense Agencies
U.S. Special Operations Command
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. RALPH E. SUGGS, USN, DEPUTY
COMMANER IN CHIEF
Tricare Management Activity
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. THOMAS F. CARRATO, PHS, CHIEF
OPERATING OFFICER
Defense Logistics Agency
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK N. BAILLIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF RESOURCES, PLANNING, AND PERFORMANCE,
DEFENSE LOGISTICS SUPPORT COMMAND
Personnel Support, Families and Education
STATEMENT OF GAIL H. MCGINN, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Senator Burns. Now, we will hear from our second panel this
morning, representing the Defense agencies. We will hear from
Rear Admiral Ralph Suggs, Deputy Commander in Chief, U.S.
Special Operations Command; Admiral Carrato, Chief Operating
Officer of TRICARE Management Activity, and we certainly
appreciate you coming this morning, the Executive Director of
the Defense Logistics Agency, Frederick Baillie; and Ms. Gail
McGinn, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Personnel Support, Families and Education. And we appreciate
what a mission you have, by the way.
We will let the room settle down here just a little bit.
Thank you. We appreciate you being with us today. I hope this
testimony this morning will provide this subcommittee with an
overview of your respective agency's proposals for the 2000
budget. All your statements, if you have prepared statements,
will be made a part of the record in their entirety, and if you
want to capsulate, that is fine. We will do a dialogue up here.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome all the
witnesses. I look forward to your testimony.
Admiral Suggs. Good morning Senator Burns and Senator
Murray. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the fiscal
year 2000 military construction budget request for the United
States Special Operations Command. I am Rear Admiral Ralph
Suggs, the Deputy Command in Chief of the Special Operations
Command. I just recently joined the Command, after commanding
Carrier Group 6, known as the John C. Stennis Battle Group,
returning from the Gulf last fall.
I am accompanied this morning by Lt. Colonel Steve McCain,
from our congressional liaison staff, as well as Mr. Steve
Dwight, who is our command engineer.
I will submit my formal statement for the record and
present a brief summary this morning, if I could.
Our military construction program has a direct, positive
and enduring impact on our joint special operations capability,
as you all know. The Command's Guard, Reserve and active duty
soldiers, sailors and airmen possess highly specialized skills
required to successfully execute the full range of joint
special operations. The current military construction program
is planned to provide essential--and I underline
``essential''--facilities that preserve and improve force
capability, increase the readiness of complex weapon systems--
which really means our people--and support demanding training
needs.
SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND (SOCOM)
Our military construction budget request for fiscal year
2000 is $58.6 million--$50.6 million for major construction,
$2.3 million for unspecified minor construction, and $5.7
million for planning and design for future projects. We feel
this is fairly modest, relatively. Approval of this program is
essential to the continued development of joint special
operations forces, which support America's national security
needs.
This committee's support in prior years has greatly
improved our operations capability. We look forward to working
with you all to acquire the facilities needed by our people at
USSOCOM, so that they can perform the mission that you expect.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you all this
morning, and I look forward to entertaining your questions.
[Statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Ralph E. Suggs
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to present
the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) fiscal year 2000
Military Construction (MILCON) submittal. Our MILCON program has a
direct, positive impact on our training and operational capabilities.
The highly specialized skills and equipment required to successfully
execute the full spectrum of special operations missions also demand a
modern array of operations, training, maintenance and storage
facilities.
purpose
The long term goal of the USSOCOM facilities program, of which
MILCON is one part, is to have all units and individuals working and
living in adequate facilities in order to maximize training and
operations capabilities. Facilities requirements are generated by the
need to modernize and replace inadequate facilities and the need to
support new weapons systems, force structure, and missions. The current
program is planned to provide facilities that will improve force
capability, increase readiness of complex weapons systems, and support
diverse training needs. In particular, the program provides facilities
to support the Special Operations mission to provide riverine training
for our allies when the Naval Small Craft Instruction and Technical
Training School (NAVSCIATTS) is transferred from Panama to Mississippi.
It also replaces substandard facilities for the 75th Ranger Regiment
and 4th Psychological Operations Group. These facilities will
accommodate an improved and expanded special operations forces (SOF)
capability. All of the individual construction requests are part of a
component master construction plan. Component MILCON projects are
integrated at the USSOCOM level to ensure that the most needed projects
are constructed at the right place, on time, and with the highest
return on investment.
Your support in prior years has aided immeasurably in improving our
operations capability. We look forward to working with your committee
to acquire facilities needed by USSOCOM to perform it missions and
ensure we have a fully trained and capable force in the future.
milcon program
The six military construction projects in this program include two
projects for the Army Special Operations Command, three for the Naval
Special Warfare command and one for the Joint Special Operations
Command. Our MILCON budget for fiscal year 2000 requests fiscal year
2000 appropriations of $20.2 million for six major construction
projects, plus $2.3 million for unspecified minor construction, and
$5.7 million for planning and design. We are also requesting fiscal
year 200 advanced appropriations in the amount of $30.4 million to
provide for the completion of these fiscal year 2000 projects. The
majority of our program supports replacement and renovation of current
mission facilities. One project supports relocation of the Naval Small
Craft Instruction and Technical Training School (NAVSCIATTS) from
Panama to Mississippi. This budget request recognizes the need to
balance construction requirements against acquisition programs and the
high state of readiness required of all special operations forces.
Following is a brief description of each of the six projects listed
by state:
NSWC Command and Control Facility Addition NAB Coronado, CA--
$6,000,000.--Construct a command and control administrative facility
addition (including renovation of existing administration facility) for
the Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC). The existing facilities are
not large enough to accommodate NSWC Command and Control Headquarters
personnel. The number of NSWC personnel has doubled since original
construction. Currently, temporary buildings (trailers) are being used
to alleviate space deficiencies. The construction will provide adequate
and safe facilities to support NSWC Command and Control Headquarters.
Renovate the existing facility to include administrative support areas,
physical conditioning areas, seventy-five person amphitheater/
auditorium and conference spaces.
Regimental Command and Control Facility Fort Benning, GA--
$10,200,000.--Provides a regimental headquarters, reconnaissance and
signal detachment facility, company operations, and training detachment
building for the 75th Ranger Regiment. This headquarters currently
occupies a dilapidated and antiquated Korean War era barracks building.
The building is completely inadequate as a command and control
facility. The facility's layout is inefficient and impeded smooth and
synchronized operations. Work place quality of life of the soldiers is
substandard. The regiment needs new facilities to replace an old
barracks building it is currently using as a regimental headquarters.
The Army has slated the old barracks for demolition. This project is
required to provide permanent facilities for the consolidated command
and control and supporting sophisticated intelligence, communications,
and command and control systems which link the 75th Ranger Regiment to
Army, joint, unified and national level systems and agencies.
Small Craft Training Complex Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant,
Stennis Space Center, Mississippi--$9,600,000.--Construct a Naval Small
Craft Instruction and Technical Training School (NAVSCIATTS) complex
for naval Special Warfare Center. The existing facilities are located
in Panama and will be turned over to the Panamanian Government. The
need to provide courses such as riverine operations planning, patrol
craft weapons maintenance, outboard motor maintenance and overhaul
still remains to be provided by the Naval Special Warfare community.
Instruction to allied forces is a continuing need. The complex will
provide adequate and safe instruction and training facilities to
support NAVSCIATTS. Training facilities will include, instructional and
mock training areas, classrooms, support areas, storage areas,
conference spaces, instructors and administrative office rooms, student
berthing and student support areas.
Battalion Operations Complex Fort Bragg, NC--$18,600,000.--
Constructs two battalion headquarters and two company administration
and supply buildings for the 4th Psychological Operations Group and
96th Civil Affairs Battalion. New facilities are needed to replace old,
deteriorated, undersized, WWII wooden buildings uneconomical to
maintain or restore. Current substandard 4th POG facilities are
undersized by 45 percent and are located in old, deteriorated World War
II temporary wooden buildings. These buildings lack adequate
electrical, heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and plumbing
systems.
Deployable Equipment Facility Fort Bragg, NC--$1,500,000.--
Constructs an 8,000 square-foot deployable equipment facility to be
used by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). JSOC personnel
individual equipment (uniforms, boots, helmets, ruck sacks, protective
vests, etc.) is stored, secured and packed for immediate deployment
when the need arises. Currently, the equipment is stored in various
work areas, hallways, stairwells and ad-hoc locker rooms that could be
used more effectively. The new building will provide the required
secure storage, which is essential to meeting mandated time lines for
rapid deployments.
Mission Support Facility FCTC-Atlantic, DAM Neck, VA--$4,700,000.--
Construct a single story building and a three story building to support
Naval Special Warfare Ordnance operations. The existing facilities are
temporary buildings that do not provide adequate space or ventilation
for the safe use of materials and equipment needed to perform the
mission. Material is store in milvans which do not provide adequate
ventilation. Specialized equipment is left exposed to the corrosive
salt water environment due to lack of storage facilities. A facility is
required to provide a safe working environment for ordnance operations
personnel involved in research, testing, and development of specialized
ordnance procedures. Spaces for administrative support and planning are
necessary for additional personnel being assigned to work in the
ordnance mission support arena. Storage areas are needed for
administrative materials, testing equipment and personnel gear.
summary
Our proposed fiscal year 2000 MILCON budget for facility
investments will significantly improve the operational and training
capability of Special Operations Command. Approval of this program is
essential to ensure the continued development of our nation's Special
Operations Forces.
STATEMENT OF GAIL H. MC GINN
Senator Burns. Secretary McGinn.
Ms. McGinn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, it is indeed a privilege to appear
before you today and report on the current status of a key
component of our quality-of-life program, the Department of
Defense education activity's construction program for fiscal
year 2000.
I have submitted my full statement for the record, and I do
have some brief comments.
I would like to thank the committee for your unwavering
support and commitment to service members' quality of life.
When ground is broken on our military installations, our
community knows that we believe in the importance of sustaining
and improving their quality of life. Our schools, along with
our facilities, such as child care, fitness centers, family
centers, and education centers, are critical components of our
strategy to develop livable communities.
Last year, with your support, we made great improvements in
quality of life through military construction, including 12
fitness centers, nine child care centers, three education
centers, and six school projects. This year we are committed to
continue to build upon this momentum by requesting over $1.5
billion for quality-of-life construction projects. This is
critical, since providing a good quality of life remains
essential to sustaining U.S. forces.
Having modern, safe and attractive facilities underscores
our joint commitment. As a result of the fiscal year 2000
construction program, the Department plans to construct or
modernize 11 additional fitness centers for our military
communities, two child development centers, one family service
center, and six more schools--three in the United States and
three overseas.
Our school system is in good hands, and continues to make
enormous strides to provide a quality educational opportunity
for our military children, by improving the teaching and
learning process and raising the standard of learning to ensure
excellence, and creating greater accountability so that we
reach our expected outcomes. In support of this, beginning in
fiscal year 2000, we will be phasing in a full-day kindergarten
program in all our schools and reducing pupil-to-teacher ratios
in grades 1 to 3 to 18-to-1.
The high educational standards we have set for our students
and our teachers must be matched by our equal commitment to our
school infrastructure. Clean, well maintained facilities send a
clear message to our students and their parents that we are
committed to providing a world-class education.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY (DoDEA) FACILITY REQUIREMENT
Last year we briefed the committee that we had developed a
long-term strategy to address our facility requirements by
focusing on the most urgent needs, with special emphasis on
Guam and Camp Lejeune. I am pleased to report that we are on
track with all of the 1999 projects. Our plan for this year
will provide improvements to our school infrastructure, totally
$84.3 million, almost double the amount of last year, and
demonstrate our continuing commitment to modernize our schools.
This year our plan calls for continuing improvements at
Guam, at Anderson Air Force Base and Camp Lejeune, launching
the overseas component of our modernization strategy at Rota,
Spain, and at RAF Feltwell, in the United Kingdom, and
addressing deficiencies, to include physical education
facilities both at our school at Marine Corps Air Station
Beaufort, South Carolina, and at RAF Lakenheath, in the United
Kingdom.
Our first project is on Guam. The Anderson Elementary
School project will provide a permanent pre-kindergarten
through eighth grade facility, and allow students to move out
of current relocated leased facilities that have housed many of
the school functions since 1997. Over the past 2 years, we have
made great strides in our facilities on Guam. Not only have the
schools been a great morale booster for our families, but they
have had the added value of stabilizing the accompanied tour
rate on the island.
The Tarawa II Elementary School is in the second phase of a
long-term plan to replace all the substandard school facilities
at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. These schools were hit hard by
a hurricane in 1996. This project will replace a facility with
serious structural problems that do not meet North Central
Association or Department standards.
The project at Naval Air Station Rota, in Spain, will
provide an addition to replace most of the current elementary
school complex, which is in need of significant renovations and
upgrade work. Furthermore, since the current elementary school
campus design is located in six separate buildings, this new
project will enhance the quality of education by allowing us to
consolidate many of the school activities for our students and
faculty.
The final three projects--Feltwell Elementary School,
Laurel Bay Elementary and RAF Lakenheath Middle School--will
allow us to move our students out of current substandard
temporary facilities into modern ones that can properly support
the rigors of a quality educational program. These projects
will enhance our students' learning environment by providing
them with new physical education facilities, appropriate-sized,
multipurpose classrooms, and modern science and computer media
labs.
In conclusion, I want to thank the committee again for your
support for our school system's military construction
requirements, and, moreover, for all programs that support our
troops and their families and the livability of our military
communities. Quality-of-life programs, as you know, are not
just nice to have, but, rather, provide the foundation of our
corporate culture of taking care of people so they can focus on
our mission.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I look forward to working with you and the rest of the
Congress on these challenges now and in the future. So, again,
thank you very much, and I will be glad to answer any questions
you have.
[Statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gail H. McGinn
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is indeed a privilege
to appear before you 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 for fiscal year 2000. Let me begin by stating that
the Department's school system is in good hands, focused on providing
our children with a world class education designed to prepare them to
compete in the global economy in the 21st Century. DODEA continues to
make enormous strides to provide a better quality educational
opportunity for our military children by improving the teaching and
learning process--raising the standard of learning to ensure excellence
and creating greater accountability to measure progress toward expected
outcomes.
putting people first
Providing a good quality of life for America's military and their
families remains essential to sustaining U.S. military strength.
Reflecting that reality, the Secretary is emphasizing our quality of
life programs in this year's budget by putting people first. We never
lose focus on our people--soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. They
are the bedrock of our National Security strategy. We remain the
world's preeminent military force because our people are highly skilled
and motivated. The quality of our force is directly related to our
strong and sustained commitment to their quality of life.
the military community
Our military communities provide a healthy and secure environment
in which to live, raise a family and educate children. Schools are the
fabric of the military community and help to reinforce the livability
and vitality of our overseas installations and many communities in the
United States. At many installations, schools act as old fashioned town
squares--where families come to meet and exchange the latest news and
where the futures of their children are forged and everlasting
friendships are cemented. Military personnel cannot choose where they
live. They face long separations from their families, imminent danger,
short-notice deployments and frequent relocations. Building a sense of
community is important since military life imposes this particular set
of burdens on families.
Our schools along with other programs such as housing, child care,
fitness centers and family centers are critical components of our
strategy to develop livable communities. Last year with your support,
we made great improvements in quality of life through military
construction projects including 12 fitness centers, 9 child care
centers, three education centers and six school projects. All projects
authorized in the fiscal year 1999 program are on track and are either
in the final stages of design or contract award. Before fully
addressing the specific requirements for each DODEA project submitted
with this year's budget, let me briefly summarize some of the other
priorities, programs and associated construction projects that we have
submitted this year to enhance military community quality of life.
fiscal year 2000 community quality of life construction
Military construction is a high impact morale booster at the
community and individual level. 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. The perceived quality of programs and commitment of
leadership is often judged by the condition of the installation
infrastructure. Having modern, safe and attractive facilities
underscores our joint commitment to the standard of living of our
Service members and their families.
Our fiscal year 2000 quality of life construction program of over
$1.5 billion reflects that commitment. As part of this MILCON request
for military community quality of life, we will construct or modernize
11 community physical fitness centers, two child development centers
and one family service center (attached at the end of this statement).
fitness centers
A major goal within the Department is the modernization and
upgrading of fitness facilities. Fitness centers not only rank as the
top morale, welfare and recreation program, they are also the program
used by the most people. A recent survey of fitness facilities found
that 24 percent of 576 facilities were in excellent condition; however,
22 percent were in poor condition requiring renovation or replacement.
Recently, the Department launched Operation Be Fit, a special
initiative to improve fitness programs and increase individual
participation in fitness activities. The Services supported improvement
in fitness facilities with facility renovations, equipment upgrades,
increases in operating hours, and development of Service-specific
operating standards. This year our plans call for over $63.7 million
for 11 fitness construction projects for our military communities (see
following chart).
[In Thousands of Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army..................................... Ft. Campbell, KY............ Physical Fitness Training 6,000
Center.
Walter Reed Army Med. Physical Fitness Training 6,800
Center, DC. Center.
Ft Lewis, WA................ Physical Fitness Training 6,200
Center.
Navy..................................... Norfolk Naval Station, VA... Waterfront Athletic Complex. 10,890
San Diego Marine Corps. Physical Fitness Center 3,200
Recruit Depot, CA. Addition.
Camp Lejeune Marine Corps. Physical Fitness Center..... 4,230
Base, NC.
Air Force................................ Travis AFB, CA.............. Add to Physical Fitness 7,500
Center.
Schriver AFB--Falcon AFS, CO Physical Fitness Center..... 3,900
Mac Dill AFB, FL............ Physical Fitness Center..... 5,500
Whiteman AFB, MO............ Physical Fitness Center..... 1,900
Osan AB, Korea.............. Adal Physical Fitness Center 7,600
----------
Total................................ ............................ ............................ 63,720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
child care programs
The Department appreciates your continuing support of our child
care program. The availability of accessible, affordable, high quality
child care is critical to the maintenance of our workforce. We are
currently meeting about 58 per cent of the total child care needs of
our members. Our goal is to meet 65 per cent by 2003. For fiscal year
1999, we have nine projects in progress. Of these two provide expanded
capability to meet the local need and seven replace temporary or
substandard structures that are no longer cost effective to maintain or
adequate for delivering child care. In fiscal year 2000, we have two
projects scheduled, one at Yuma Marine Corps Air Station, Arizona for
$2.6 million and a second at RAF Lakenheath in the United Kingdom for
$5.8 million. Both are new facilities to expand capacity and replace
existing inadequate or substandard structures.
Our efforts to increase capacity through contracting initiatives
have provided mixed results. The Navy competed their entire child care
program for the San Diego area under the A-76 competitive sourcing
authority and won the competition. The Army competed child care
programs at three locations and only received a competing civilian bid
in one case which the Army won. The Navy tested expanding capacity by
buying down the cost for space in civilian child care centers so
members would pay the same as they would at a military center. They
found that there was little to no availability of space for children
under age two and those spaces that were contracted were only used if
the civilian center was convenient to the military installation.
Through the Defense Logistics Agency we're also testing third party
management of government built child care centers.
We have the RAND Corporation studying the potential for outsourcing
military child care. The study is looking at whether outsourcing is a
feasible approach to expand our capacity and whether outsourcing of any
type can reduce the cost per space to DOD. We expect the study to be
completed in about a year. We plan to continue the use of contracting
options, but we're also going to target efforts to expand the in-home
family child care component of our program. We believe we can expand
our in-home care capacity by expanding our use of subsidies to in-home
providers and establishing licensing agreements with state and local
licensing agencies to allow those military spouses living off-base to
provide in-home family child care.
We appreciate your support of our child care construction programs
and we know that we must look for as many low cost options as possible.
We support a balance of program delivery models including outsourcing
at each installation. No one option will provide the entire solution to
the need for military child care.
family support
Family support programs are a lifeline for families in an unstable
environment during deployments, frequent moves, and long work hours.
The stresses of the military life require an ongoing commitment to
families' quality of life. The 284 DOD family centers deliver an
extensive array of human and social services to promote healthy
personal and family life. The centers also help members and their
families adapt to the unique challenges of military life. Various
programs provide assistance in relocation, spouse employment,
parenting, financial management, deployment and family separation,
crisis or unexpected contingency, and other areas. This year we are
requesting $1.34 million for a project at New River Marine Corps Air
Station in South Carolina. Family support is an integral part of the
Department's strategy to maintain a ready force and a major determiner
of retention.
department of defense education activity (dodea)
Now, I'd like turn to our school system, the Department of Defense
Education Activity (DODEA). The education of the children of our
Service men and women is key to recruitment and retention. The
Department operates the 21st largest school system in the nation, 231
schools worldwide--161 schools serve more than 80,000 children in 14
foreign countries, and 70 schools serve more than 35,000 students in
the United States. To be sure that students are properly prepared and
ready for the 21st century, our schools must provide a world class
educational standard and be safe and modern places to in which to
learn. These schools of the future need to be safe, clean,
appropriately sized and equipped with computer capability, new media
and state-of-the-art science labs.
educational standards
At the core of our community strategic plan is the need to have
rigorous educational standards in the classroom to challenge our
students to be productive members of society. Strong schools with clear
and high standards of achievement and discipline are essential to our
children and our society. These standards of excellence are important
to help instill the excitement, knowledge and basic values, such as
hard work, that will set our children on the right track. The
Department is committed to leading the way by providing an educational
program that compares favorably with the best U.S. public school
systems and one that prepares students to compete in a global economy.
We have fully adopted the National Education Goals, we are implementing
a plan to link all schools to the Internet; and in the year 2000, we
are launching several new initiatives:
Presidential Initiatives.--Our budget for fiscal year 2000 supports
continued work toward improving the quality of education to include
funding to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in grades one through three,
and to begin implementation of full-day kindergarten in overseas
schools. It also provides for a pilot summer school program. These
initiatives respond to program priorities identified by our senior
commanders in the field and support the President's educational
priorities.
Technology.--Technology continues to receive a major emphasis in
order to ensure that all schools are connected to the Internet and that
students are computer literate and well prepared for the information
age. We are systematically increasing hardware and software
procurement. All schools will have Internet access by the year 2000 and
have an average student-to-computer ratio of 4:1.
Military Community and Parental Involvement.--We are committed to
including the military command, organizations, and groups throughout
the military community in the education process of budget, curriculum,
and school policies development.
fiscal year 2000 dodea construction projects
We have set high educational standards for our students and our
teachers but we cannot expect our children to learn and our teachers to
foster learning on a crumbling foundation. In order to keep faith with
our children, we must ensure that our schools are prepared for the next
century. Clean, well-maintained, up-to-date facilities send a clear
message to our students: ``You are important to us! We take your
education seriously.'' To this end, we began an aggressive plan in 1999
to revitalize our school infrastructure by focusing on the most urgent
requirements. First was the construction of permanent school facilities
to serve students on Guam and second was a long overdue, replacement of
aged stateside schools to include Camp Lejeune and other serious
facility requirements in the coming budgets. I am pleased to report
that we are on track with all of these projects. Our program for fiscal
year 2000, calls for continued improvements for Guam and at our
stateside schools at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Our next priorities
launch the overseas component of our strategy with projects at NAS Rota
in Spain and at RAF Feltwell in the United Kingdom. Our final two
projects in this year's request are Laurel Bay Elementary School at
Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, South Carolina and at RAF
Lakenheath, United Kingdom.
Specifics on each project in the fiscal year 2000 DODEA request are
as follows:
Construct Andersen Elementary School, Andersen AFB, Guam
DODEA established schools on Guam beginning with the 97-98 school
year. At that time classes were held in temporary facilities in a
variety of base-owned buildings on Andersen AFB. In 1998, classes were
moved to relocatable buildings leased until the permanent facility came
on line. This project will provide a 177,000 square foot complete
elementary school complex to house students in grades PK-8.
Replace Tarawa Terrace II Elementary School, Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina
DODEA has initiated a long-term project to replace substandard
school facilities on Camp Lejeune which will include replacement of
several of the schools there. This project will replace a facility in
need of major infrastructure upgrades which cannot support the current
educational programs. It includes 86,000 square feet to support 690
students in grades PK-8.
Renovations and Additions, NAS Rota, Spain
This project provides a 102,000 square foot addition to replace
most of the current elementary school complex at Rota. The elementary
school campus is comprised of a number of buildings constructed at
various times throughout the past thirty years, all of which are now in
need of significant renovations and upgrade work to remain in use. This
project will provide facilities which meet the current educational
requirements of the students, which cannot be met at the present
school.
Construct Addition, Feltwell Elementary School, RAF Feltwell, United
Kingdom
This project will replace temporary facilities constructed in the
early 90s in response to an increased enrollment at the Lakenheath and
Feltwell schools due to a realignment of military forces in Europe.
This project will construct an 11,000 square foot multipurpose addition
with 8 general purpose classrooms, a computer lab, media center, and
multipurpose room.
Construct Addition, Laurel Bay Elementary School, Marine Corps Air
Station Beaufort South Carolina
This project provides a 23,000 square foot facility which will
provide a new gymnasium, music and general purpose classrooms, science
and computer labs, and an expansion of the current media center. The
current facility does not provide adequate general purpose classroom
space, the media center is too small, and there is no gymnasium.
Completion of this project will allow the elementary school to vacate
substandard temporary facilities now in use.
Construct Gymnasium, Lakenheath Middle School, RAF Lakenheath, United
Kingdom
This project will provide a new 15,000 square foot physical
education facility for the middle school students at Lakenheath.
Physical education activities for the middle school are currently held
in a converted World War II hangar. This building is now in need of
major renovations, and does not provide proper facilities to support
the physical education program.
In conclusion, I want to thank the committee again for your support
for the military construction requirements of our schools and,
moreover, for all programs that support our troops and their
families'and the livability of our military communities. Quality of
Life programs are not just ``nice to have'', but rather they provide
the foundation of our corporate culture of taking care of people so
they can focus on the mission. Quality of life is key to preserving
individual and family well-being and solidifying military and societal
core values in our forces, while concomitantly contributing to a
trained and ready force. Your support is essential to maintaining and
upgrading these programs, services and facilities. I would like to
thank this committee for your steadfast support of these important
programs over the years. I look forward to working with you and the
rest of the Congress on these challenges now and in the future. Thank
you.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM SELECT QUALITY OF LIFE PROJECTS
[In Thousands of Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Location Project Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DODEA.................................... Anderson AFB, Guam Anderson Elementary School.......... 44,170
Camp Lejeune Marine Corps. Tarawa Terrace II 10,570
Base, NC. Elementary School.
NAS Rota, Spain............ Elementary School.......... 17,020
RAF Feltwell, UK........... Elementary School.......... 4,570
Marine Corps. Air Station Laurel Bay Elementary 2,874
Beaufort, SC. School Addition.
RAF Lakenheath, UK......... Lakenheath Middle School... 3,770
ARMY..................................... Ft. Campbell, KY........... Physical Fitness Training 6,000
Center.
Walter Reed Army Med. Physical Fitness Training 6,800
Center, DC. Center.
Ft. Lewis, WA.............. Physcial Fitness Training 6,200
Center.
NAVY..................................... Norfolk Naval Station, VA.. Waterfront Athletic Complex 10,890
Yuma Marine Corps. Air Child Development Center 2,620
Station, AZ. Addn.
San Diego Marine Corps. Physical Fitness Center 3,200
Recruit Depot, CA. ADDN.
Camp Lejeune Marine Corps. Physical Fitness Center.... 4 ,230
Base, NC.
New River Marine Corps. Air Family Service Center...... 1,340
Station, NC.
AIR FORCE................................ Travis AFB, CA............. Add to Physical Fitness 7,500
Center.
Schriever AFB--Falcon AFS, Physical Fitness Center.... 3,900
CO.
Mac Dill AFB, FL........... Physical Fitness Center.... 5,500
Whiteman AFB, MO........... Physical Fitness Center.... 1,900
Osan AB, Korea............. Adal Physical Fitness 7,600
Center.
RAF Lakenheath, UK......... Child Development Center... 5,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2000 MEDICAL MILCON PROGRAM
Senator Burns. Admiral Carrato, good morning.
Admiral Carrato. Mr. Chairman, Senator Murray, thank you
for the opportunity to present the Department of Defense's
fiscal year 2000 medical military construction program budget
request. This committee has been very supportive of our medical
construction program in the past, and I look forward to working
with you.
I would like to present this morning a brief overview of
our fiscal year 2000 medical military construction program and
provide a longer written statement for the record.
Our mission is to protect our forces before, during and
operational deployment, as well as provide health care services
to other eligible beneficiaries of the Department of Defense.
Our fiscal year 2000 program requests fiscal year 2000
appropriations of $60.38 million for 23 major construction
projects, as well as $3.587 million for unspecified minor
construction. We are also seeking $9.5 million for planning and
design efforts to complete designs on fiscal year 2001 projects
and to commence design on projects identified for fiscal year
2002.
The total request for this appropriation is $73.467
million. We are also requesting fiscal year 2001 advanced
appropriations in the amount of $101.37 million, excluding Fort
Wainright funding, to be enacted in the fiscal year 2000
Military Construction Appropriations Act, in order that we may
have the funding needed to complete projects begun in fiscal
year 2000.
The hospital replacement project at Fort Wainright, Alaska,
will be funded over 5 years, beginning in fiscal year 2000, and
being completed in fiscal year 2004. The fiscal year 2000 phase
one project request for appropriations is for $18 million.
Our fiscal year 2000 budget request includes a total of 23
projects: two projects for hospital addition, alteration, life
safety upgrades, and support infrastructure; one project for
medical training mission support, nine medical readiness-
related projects, nine clinical replacement, addition,
alteration-type projects, and two medical logistics warehouses.
All of these projects will either improve the departmental
mission of readiness or the efficiency and productivity of our
providers, and thus, ultimately, quality of life for our
beneficiaries.
We are constantly working to right-size and reengineer DOD
medical facilities to support the changing practices of health
care delivery. No portion of the overseas medical projects--one
at RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom, and the other at Ramstein,
Germany--are eligible for Northern Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) funding or host nation funding. The hospital project at
Yongsan, Korea, is, however, eligible for host nation funding.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This concludes my overview statement of the fiscal year
2000 medical military construction budget request. The program
stands as a testament to our commitment to maintain our medical
readiness and provide quality health care services to the men
and women of the armed forces. Thank you for the opportunity to
present our budget, and I welcome your questions on any aspect
of the budget. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Radm Thomas F. Carrato
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am RADM
Thomas F. Carrato, Chief Operating Officer of the TRICARE Management
Activity, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs.
On behalf of Dr. Sue Bailey, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs and Dr. James Sears, the Executive Director, TRICARE
Management Activity, I thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of Defense's fiscal year 2000 Medical Military Construction
Program budget request.
I'd like to present a brief overview of our fiscal year 2000
Medical Military Construction Program this morning. The Appropriations
Committee has been very supportive of our Medical Construction Program
in the past and I look forward to working with you.
Our mission is to protect our forces before, during and after
operational deployment as well as provide preventive health care
services to other eligible beneficiaries of the Department of Defense.
Our fiscal year 2000 program requests fiscal year 2000 appropriations
of $60,380,000 for 23 major construction projects. We are also seeking
$3,587,000 for unspecified minor construction and $9,500,000 for
planning and design efforts to complete designs on fiscal year 2001
projects and to commence design on projects identified for fiscal year
2002. The total request for this appropriation is $73,467,000. We are
also requesting fiscal year 2001 advanced appropriations in the amount
of $101,370,000 (excluding Fort Wainwright funding) to be enacted in
the fiscal year 2000 Military Construction Appropriations Act in order
that we may have the funding needed to complete projects begun in
fiscal year 2000.
The attached table lists the total fiscal year 2000 program funding
requirement, the fiscal year 2000 funding request and fiscal year 2001
advanced appropriations request for each project (with the exception of
Fort Wainwright):
STATE LIST OF PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2000 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS' FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
[In Millions of Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Advanced
Location/Project Authorized Appropriation Appropriation
Request Request Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ft. Wainwright, AK: Hospital 133.000 18.000 .............
Replacement (Ph 1)...........
Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ: 10.000 2.400 7.600
Ambulatory Health Care Center
Add..........................
Los Angeles AFB, CA: Medical/ 13.600 2.400 11.200
Dental Clinic Repl...........
Travis AFB, CA: WRM Warehouse/ 7.500 2.000 5.500
Engg Sup Fac.................
Jacksonville NAS, FL: Branch 3.780 0.780 3.000
Med/Den Clinic Add/Alt.......
Patrick AFB, FL: Medical 1.750 0.200 1.550
Logistics Facility Repl......
Pensacola NAS, FL: Aircrew 4.300 1.300 3.000
Water Survival Training
Facility.....................
Moody AFB, GA: WRM Warehouse/ 1.250 0.200 1.050
BEE Facility.................
Ramstein AB, GE: Dental Clinic 7.100 2.550 4.550
Add/Alt......................
Yongsan, KO: Hospital Add/Alt. 38.570 9.570 29.000
Yongsan, KO: Medical Supply/ 2.550 2.300 0.250
Equip Stor Whse..............
Ft. Riley, KS: Consolidated 6.000 1.060 4.940
Troop Medical Clinic.........
Andrews AFB, MD: Med Log Fac 3.000 2.000 1.000
Add/Alt......................
Patuxent River NAS, MD: 4.150 1.200 2 .950
Aircrew Water Survival
Training Facility............
Cherry Point MCAS, NC: Aircrew 3.500 1.000 2 .500
Water Survival Training
Facility.....................
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: 3.900 2.800 1.100
Occupational Health Clinic/
BEE Repl.....................
Sabana Seca NSGA, PR: Med/Den 4.000 1.120 2.880
Clinic Repl..................
Ft. Sam Houston, TX Veterinary 5.800 0.600 5.200
Instructional Facility.......
RAF Lakenheath, UK: Dental 7.100 1.000 6.100
Clinic Add/Alt...............
Cheatham Annex, VA FHSO 1.650 0.500 1.150
Container Holding Yard.......
Norfolk NAS, VA Aircrew Water 4.050 1.150 2.900
Survival Training Facility...
Ft. Lewis, WA N. Ft Lewis, 5.500 4.950 0.550
Dental Clinic Repl...........
Whidbey Island NAS, WA Aircrew 4.700 1.300 3 .400
Water Survival Training
Facility.....................
-----------------------------------------
Total Major Construction 276.750 60.380 101.370
=========================================
Planning & Design............. 9.500 9.500 .............
Unspecified Minor Construction 3.587 3.587 .............
-----------------------------------------
Grand Total Fiscal Year 289.837 73.467 .............
2000 MILCON............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hospital replacement project at Fort Wainwright, Alaska will be
funded over five years, fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2004. The
fiscal year 2000 Phase I project request for appropriations is for
$18,000,000.
The hospital addition/alteration project at Yongsan, Korea requires
a total of $38,570,000 in military construction appropriations--
$9,570,000 this year and the remainder next year. This project will
have a companion $40,000,000 O&M funding spread over several years and
Host Nation funding of $7,800,000. This project replaces one wing and
provides heavy renovation of the remainder of this facility. The
central portion of this facility is a 1940's Japanese constructed
building. A series of four separate buildings constructed between 1959
and 1990 have been attached to it for the provision of healthcare. This
project brings the hospital into compliance with the Life Safety and
Fire codes and standards.
This budget request includes the following nine medical readiness
related projects:
--A War Readiness Material Warehouse/Engineering Support Facility at
Travis Air Force Base, California;
--A War Readiness Material Warehouse/Bioenvironmental Engineering
Facility at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia;
--A Medical Supply/Equipment Storage Warehouse at Yongsan, Korea;
--A Fleet Hospital Support Office Container Holding Yard and Wash
Platform at Cheatham Annex, Virginia; and
--Five AirCrew Water Survival Training Facilities at Pensacola Naval
Air Station, Florida; Patuxent River Naval Air Station,
Maryland; Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station, North
Carolina; Norfolk Naval Air Station, Virginia; and Whidbey
Island Naval Air Station, Washington.
Our budget request also includes nine clinics that are either
replacements or additions/alterations. They are:
--An Ambulatory Health Care Center Addition/Alteration at Davis-
Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona;
--A Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement at Los Angeles Air Force Base,
California;
--A Branch Medical/Dental Clinic Additional/Alteration at
Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Florida;
--A Dental Clinic Addition/Alteration at Ramstein Air Base, Germany;
--A Consolidated Troop Medical Clinic at Fort Riley, Kansas;
--An Occupational Health Clinic/Bioenvironmental Engineering
Replacement Facility at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio;
--A Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement at Naval Security Group
Activity Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico;
--A Dental Clinic Addition/Alteration at Royal Air Force Lakenheath,
United Kingdom; and
--A Dental Clinic Replacement at North Fort Lewis, Washington.
The Veterinary Instructional Facility at Fort Sam Houston, Texas
will enhance the Medical Training Mission. In 1980, Congress
disestablished the Air Force Veterinary Services and directed the Army
to procure, train and provide veterninary missions for the entire
Department of Defense. Reorganizations within the Army and the BRAC 88
closure of Letterman Army Medical Center have centrally located this
training at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas.
We are also requesting funding for two medical logistics warehouse
projects. The first is a Medical Logistics Facility Replacement project
at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, and the second is a Medical
Logistics Facility Addition/Alteration project at Andrews Air Force
Base, Maryland.
conclusion
This concludes my overview statement of the fiscal year 2000
medical military construction budget request. The program stands as a
testament to our commitment to maintain our medical readiness and
provide quality health care services to the men and women of our Armed
Forces. 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, Admiral.
Mr. Baillie, welcome back.
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK N. BAILLIE
Mr. Baillie. Good morning. Thank you for remembering, Mr.
Chairman. When I first moved down here in 1995, testifying
before this committee was one of the first challenges I got to
do, and I have looked forward to it ever since. So, again, it
is good to be here, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murray.
Since you have already agreed to include the prepared
statement, I will just have some brief oral remarks.
DLA FISCAL YEAR 2000 MILCON PROGRAM
The Defense Logistics Agency's (DLAs) fiscal year 2000
military construction request for authorization is $115.3
million for seven projects. DLA continues its emphasis on
sustaining and enhancing the Department's fuel storage and
distribution infrastructure. Five of those seven projects are
fuel related and support the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
services' operational requirements. All of our fuel projects
are hydrant fuel systems, which support strategic mobility at
critical military installations. Our fuel projects at Eielson,
Anderson, Elmendorf, Moron, and Fairchild Air Bases will
improve America's strategic en route refueling capability.
In our other business areas, we are continuing our program
to construct hazardous waste storage facilities that conform
with the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act.
And, finally, at one of DLA's remaining distribution
depots, we will replace a World War I fire station and
consolidate in a single, modern facility police, physical
security and safety functions that protect over 2,400 military
and civilian personnel, their families, and over $5 billion in
government material.
In summary, our military construction program reflects the
DLA vision to be America's premier logistics combat support
agency by providing vital facilities that enhance the services'
warfighting capability.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral statement. Thank you
again for asking me to be here. And if you have any questions,
I will be glad to respond.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frederick N. Baillie
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 2000 Military Construction
request.
military construction request
The Defense Logistics Agency has requested $115.3 million in
authorization, $24.1 million in fiscal year 2000 appropriations, and
$91.2 million in fiscal year 2001 advanced appropriations to support
our fiscal year 2000 Military Construction program. This program
consists of seven projects that will enhance strategic en route fueling
capability, increase mission responsiveness, reduce environmental
hazards, and improve facility readiness at our activities in support of
the Agency's missions. This request includes:
--$101.4 million for replacing deteriorated, obsolete hydrant fuel
systems, or providing new systems, at five critical Air Force
bases.
--$8.9 million for constructing conforming storage facilities at
various locations for the disposal of DOD-generated hazardous
waste.
--$5.0 million for the replacement of an existing fire station to
consolidate public safety functions at DLA's Defense
Distribution Depot in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania.
advance appropriation
In order to free up resources required to address high priority DOD
modernization and readiness requirements, the entire fiscal year 2000
DOD MilCon program, including DLA's, is funded through a combination of
regular fiscal year 2000 appropriations and fiscal year 2001 advance
appropriations, both of which we are requesting to be enacted in the
Fiscal Year 2000 MilCon Appropriations Act. However, this is not the
preferred method of financing the program, and the Department only
intends to utilize this method for the fiscal year 2000 program.
We are requesting full authorization for all the fiscal year 2000
projects but only a portion of this amount for appropriations we expect
to spend in fiscal year 2000. On average, the appropriation amount is
approximately 20 percent of full authorization amount of the projects.
This provides sufficient budget authority to cover the first year
outlays and obligations required to ensure that program execution is
unaffected by the change from full, upfront that we have used in the
past to full funding through advance appropriations that we are
proposing for the fiscal year 2000 program.
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 5 fuel-related projects
at $101.4 million, which is 88 percent of our total program request.
All of these projects (at the Eielson Air Force Base, AK; Elmendorf Air
Force Base, AK; Andersen Air Force Base, GU; Moron Air Base, SP; and,
Fairchild Air Force Base (AFB), WA) are priorities of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to provide critical fuels infrastructure to support strategic
en route mobility.
hydrant fuel systems
Our proposed investment to replace old and deteriorated hydrant
fuel systems, or provide new systems at critical bases, is $101.4
million. As mentioned previously, these projects all support strategic
en route mobility requirements.
We propose to construct a hydrant fuel systems at Eielson AFB, AK.
The $26.0 million project will provide a system of 20 modern,
pressurized fuel hydrant outlets. Wide-bodied aircraft are currently
fueled by refueler trucks or a small Type III hydrant system of five
outlets built by the Air Force in 1995. The existing hydrant system,
which will remain in operation, can accommodate neither the number of
aircraft refueled for peacetime operations nor those expected during a
contingency. Refueler trucks, which accomplish at 75 percent of
aircraft refuelings at the base, are highly susceptible to mechanical
failure in subzero temperatures and severe arctic conditions. In
addition, this slow, manpower-intensive operation reduces the base's
ability to meet its demanding refueling requirements and aircraft
turnaround times. The base will close the runway during fiscal year
2000 construction season to accommodate this project and two Air Force
runway projects.
We propose to replace a hydrant fuel system at Elmendorf AFB, AK.
The $23.5 million project will provide a system of 15 modern,
pressurized fuel hydrant outlets. This project provides the second of
two hydrant fuel systems needed to meet a total requirement of 30
hydrant outlets. The first system was approved in the fiscal year 1999
DLA MILCON program and is currently under construction. The existing
hydrant system, built in the 1950s, 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 over the past several years, and will
continue to pose a future environmental hazard.
At Andersen AFB, Guam, we will replace an existing hydrant fuel
system for wide-bodied aircraft supporting strategic en route mobility
requirements in the Pacific with a modern, pressurized fuel hydrant
system of 20 outlets for $24.3 million. This project provides one of
four hydrant systems needed to meet a total requirement of 67 hydrant
outlets. Currently, the base operates a 45-year-old hydrant system that
is failing and cannot support peacetime missions or en route mobility
requirements in contingency or wartime operations. Due to the potential
for environmental contamination and inability to provide replacement
components, one of three existing pumphouses has already been taken out
of service. Six other outlets (of a total of 20) are also out of
service. As with other obsolete hydrant systems elsewhere, repair parts
are no longer commercially available and must be salvaged from other
similar systems or individually fabricated. In addition, the
underground piping system lacks cathodic (corrosion) protection. The
new hydrant system will include features to protect it from the
corrosive marine environment and will employ a leak detection system.
The existing hydrant system will be demolished.
At Moron Air Base, Spain, we propose to continue with the second of
two projects for the replacement of the hydrant fuel systems at a cost
of $15.2 million. The first system was approved in the fiscal year 1997
DLA MILCON program and is currently under construction. The existing
1950's hydrant system also suffers from the obsolescence and lack of
repair parts as highlighted previously. This project is not yet
eligible for funding by the NATO Security Investment Program. However,
NATO has approved a precautionary prefinancing statement to facilitate
future U.S. recoupment of the cost of this project when eligibility is
established. This second replacement project provides a new hydrant
fuel system, storage tanks and support facilities constructed to
current standards.
At Fairchild AFB, WA, we propose to construct a new $12.4 million
hydrant fuel system to improve the base's capability to quickly refuel
wide-bodied aircraft used to support strategic en route mobility
requirements. Currently, refueler trucks or a hydrant system that uses
40-year-old underground fuel storage tanks and equipment are used to
refuel these aircraft. Aircraft must be towed into parking positions to
be refueled using the existing outlets. Low pumping rates and long
turnaround times to refill the required six-to-seven truckloads of fuel
per aircraft make use of refueler trucks unsatisfactory. The proposed
project extends the system and constructs an additional 10-outlet
hydrant fuel system to decrease refueling times and reduce dependence
on refueler trucks. Existing underground fuel storage tanks will be
demolished.
distribution and supply center investments
Distribution Depots
At our Defense Distribution Depot in New Cumberland, PA, we propose
a $5.0 million Public Safety Center to replace a World War I wooden
fire station and consolidate police, physical security, and health-and-
safety personnel. These activities are now scattered in six locations
at two separate installations, 18 kilometers apart. The existing fire
station was built in 1919 and is too small for existing fire fighting
equipment, nor does it contain satisfactory specialized space for
current around-the-clock operations common with these facilities. The
proposed facility will increase responsiveness to an operation
providing essential 24-hour protection to over 2400 active duty and
civilian personnel.
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 2000, we are requesting $8.9 million to build
conforming storage facilities at several of our Defense Reutilization
and Marketing Offices to comply with these environmental requirements.
We will proceed with those projects that receive RCRA permits from
state regulators--a process that is lengthy and somewhat unpredictable.
Consequently, as in prior years, we are requesting single-line-item
funding for this program so that we may award projects as we received
these permits. We will continue to notify the appropriate committees
before construction of each project.
summary
DLA's fiscal year 2000 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. Five of the seven 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. With the full
authorization and advance appropriations requested, we can fully
execute our program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to
present our fiscal year 2000 Military Construction program.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Baillie. We appreciate your
testimony and we appreciate your hard work on this.
Admiral Suggs, I have one specific question, the movement
of the Small Craft Instruction and Technical Training School
from Panama to Mississippi.
Admiral Suggs. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. Have you the numbers on that and the
requirement that you are going to need to make that move?
Admiral Suggs. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you saw in our
proposal, we are looking for about $9.6 million this year as
directed by the Program Budget Decision (PBD) 715 to move the
school and that training from Panama, which closed down at the
end of last year, up to Stennis. We feel that will be adequate
for the next year or so.
As you know, that is very much a success story, as we
support our Central and South American allies and friends in
the Southern Command Theater. It is a real winner for us and
for that Command. We are looking downstream, sir, in at 2001,
to complementing the school with a range, to allow the training
to be exercised in that part of the country, which is really
perfect for riverine training. We currently have to go up to
Kentucky to use some of the rivers and ranges there.
But if we can get this approved for 2001, it is going to be
in the neighborhood of about $3.3 million, sir, to provide a
360-degree range to support the training up there, the live
fire, the safety, the security, all the things that we need to
do to complement training and the schoolhouse syllabus that
will be done down at the center itself. You will be seeing that
a little later on, sir.
INCREMENTAL FUNDING
Senator Burns. Give me an idea, do you think that the
method of advanced appropriations and the incremental funding,
do you think that will slow down the execution of these
projects?
Admiral Suggs. Well, sir, we had the opportunity--and we
appreciate that--to sit in on your earlier discussions this
morning with our friends from the Navy. And we heard your
comment, and we certainly are aware of a lot of the record
comments that Dr. Hamre and Mr. Lynn have provided. We share
everybody's concern for this approach.
In a perfect world, if we got a plus-up, we would very much
like to go into fiscal years 2000 and 2001 with the $50 million
that we requested, which we feel is really modest and very
carefully planned for these programs. However, we agree that we
need to get on with the recapitalization with these six
projects, which have tremendous implications both in readiness
and especially the work place environment--the quality of life
if you will.
We at the Special Operations Command, we are very familiar
with risk management--on all our operational missions, we
approach them very critically from a risk management
perspective. We know that because of this incremental approach,
if approved, it provides some risk which may result in some
additional cost and other problems. But we have a very small
command, and we have some very talented, dedicated people
running these projects. And we have enjoyed a very successful
track record in executing the small amount of funds that we
have gotten. And we think that we can execute this program like
we have all the others in the past, and minimize that risk.
Certainly, we understand that it is there. But when you
look at what we are getting from the Special Operations
Command, as you all know, we are only about $3 billion in total
when compared to the rest of the budget. When you take out the
military pay, we are less than 1 percent of the total DoD
budget. So, this is a very modest, proposal. And I can only
promise you, from the Command in Chief and everyone associated,
that we will put the same critical approach to this risk
management for construction as we do in our operational
management. But certainly there is some risk here, and we
appreciate that.
Senator Burns. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Carrato, on your list of medical military
construction projects, you list both the authorization request
and the advanced appropriation request. And I see that Fort
Lewis Dental Center, the total request is $5.5 million and the
appropriation is just a little over a $500,000. And the total
request for the Whidbey Island Training Facility is $4.7
million while the appropriation request is $3.5 million. Can
you tell me how you arrived at the appropriated level and what
your criteria were for determining which projects were
appropriated at a higher percentage compared to the
authorization request?
Admiral Carrato. Yes, ma'am. The process was one where it
was very inclusive. We included the services, since they are
execution agents. And we looked at what would be an appropriate
level, where we could actually execute the program in 2000. And
we believe we do have budget levels that would be executable.
And we did involve the services in determining those amounts
that would be necessary.
Senator Murray. So, the appropriation level is what you
believe can be done?
Admiral Carrato. Yes, ma'am.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 ADVANCED APPROPRIATION
Senator Murray. Okay. Mr. Baillie, in your testimony, you
mention that this advanced appropriation proposal in the fiscal
year 2000 budget is not the preferred method of financing your
programs. Can you talk a little bit about what your concerns
are with that?
Mr. Baillie. I think my concerns would echo the speakers
who have gone before me. As the Admiral said, this is a
calculated risk. From a business perspective, the Department is
certainly attempting to make best use of the funds that you
appropriate to us. There are down sides and risks to that, and
I think we did discuss some of them this morning, as far as
impact on contractors and if money does not get subsequently
appropriated.
Specifically, as far as the DLA program, it is a relatively
small program. We also have been very successful in executing
it. We believe that if we are given the advanced appropriations
requested, the 2000 program could go ahead as planned.
Senator Murray. Okay, thank you.
Ms. McGinn, the Senate report accompanying the fiscal year
1999 military construction appropriation bill called for a
study on the condition and the adequacy of school facilities,
both those that are federally owned and those that are part of
the local district that support military installations. That
report was due February 15th. Can you tell me what the status
of that report is?
Ms. McGinn. Senator Murray, that report is currently in the
planning and preparation stages. We find that it will be quite
a large undertaking, and we have begun to scope it out.
I do regret that we have not sent you an interim report on
that. I apologize for that. But efforts are underway, and I
have asked for more priority on it, to get it done in a time
frame----
Senator Murray. Can you give us a time line at all when you
expect to have that to us?
Ms. McGinn. I think the nature of the report is such that
we probably have to do a contracted effort. And so I would say
9 months to a year probably.
Senator Murray. More, before we see it?
Ms. McGinn. Yes.
BANGOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Senator Murray. Okay. The Senate report also directed DOD
to allocate not less than $1 million for the design of an
elementary school to serve the Bangor Submarine community. Can
you tell me the status of that project and when you anticipate
requesting construction funds for that?
Ms. McGinn. I may have to take that one for the record,
ma'am.
Senator Murray. Okay. I would appreciate getting a response
back on that. It is one that we have been working closely with
the community on, and I really would like to know.
[The information follows:]
We understand the need to support the Central Kitsap school
district in providing quality education facilities for students of
military members stationed at Bangor Submarine Base. Last year, the
Department of Defense Education Activity met with representatives of
the Central Kitsap district to discuss the impact on the district from
military dependents, including special needs students enrolled in their
schools as a result of Bangor's designation as a compassionate
assignement post, and we continue to wor with them on this issue.
The Central kitsap School District has indicated a need for
$982,000 to complete design and related cost and environmental analyses
to prepare for construction of the new school. Discussions within the
Department indicate that military construction funds are not the
appropriate source for funding a school facility owned by a local
education agency. Regrettably, even if DoD can identify the appropriate
source of funds, funding for this expenditure has not been programmed.
Spending $1 million for the Bangor Submarine community would
significantly impact our ability to execute the program at other
locations.
Senator Murray. Let me ask you a general question on child
care needs. I noticed that you said that you are trying to meet
65 percent of the total child care needs 5 years from now.
Ms. McGinn. Correct.
Senator Murray. And from your position, is that an adequate
request?
Ms. McGinn. Well, if you visit the field, you will hear
that we do not have enough child care.
Senator Murray. I hear it all the time.
Ms. McGinn. And we do need to expand the availability and
accessibility of child care. We have been working on that since
1989, when the Military Child Care Act was put into effect. And
we have been making progress. It has not been as rapid as we
would like.
We have recently identified some ways to speed up the
access to child care by improving the way we manage our family
child care program, by putting more family child care in place.
And that would be where a military spouse would take care of up
to six children in their quarters. We can do that by
subsidizing that. We have also discovered that we can create
memorandum of agreement with civilian communities, so that we
can license people in off-base housing, as well.
So, we think that that particular approach will increase
the availability of care, probably faster than anything else.
Senator Murray. So, that would be on top of 65 percent that
your goal is, that you would look at military, on-site
families, to subsidize--how would you do that?
Ms. McGinn. No. That would be to help us get to the 65
percent.
Senator Murray. That is part of the 65 percent?
Ms. McGinn. Right.
Senator Murray. So, there is still a 35-percent unmet need
5 years from now?
DOD CHILD CARE REQUIREMENTS
Ms. McGinn. Well, our overall goal was to go to 80 percent
of the need. Because we believe that there are people who,
because of shift work or other kinds of preferences, or
familial care, even though we identified them in our formula,
would not actually come forward for military child care. So, we
set our overall goal at 80 percent, and then set our immediate
goal, for budgetary purposes and programming purposes, at 65
percent.
Senator Murray. What tools would you need to make that
happen faster?
Ms. McGinn. I think that the primary tool is really to
enhance, as I said, the family child care component of this.
That is the part of the program which appears to be growing the
most. It is the quickest way to get care out there, and
particularly if we can start to use the off-base resources,
both of licensing our people who live off base and then perhaps
licensing people who are off base to provide care for us, as
well. And that is what we are really going to be pursuing to
the greatest extent possible.
Senator Murray. Okay. Ms. McGinn, while I have you I have
to ask you a non-related issue. It is on the military funeral
honors for veterans. We are supposed to have a study back by
March 31st. Can you tell me if we will have that in hand?
Ms. McGinn. We will be close.
Senator Murray. How close?
Ms. McGinn. Our goal is to get it there by March 31st.
Senator Murray. You will not tell me 9 months later?
Ms. McGinn. No, ma'am. We have worked through the concept
within the Department of Defense. We have been out, and we have
discussed it with 20 separate veteran service organizations in
a one-on-one, consultative manner, to get their input. We are
putting the final pieces of that together right now for
coordination purposes. And we would like to come over and brief
your staff later in the month.
Senator Murray. I would very much appreciate that. We are
waiting for that report back. And as you know, veterans are
dying very quickly. And the most time that goes by, the fewer
of them have military honors. And I think we really need to
move aggressively on that.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time. I do have to go to
another committee hearing, but I really appreciate your work on
this, and I look forward to working with you.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Senator Murray.
MEDICAL FACILITY IN SOUTH KOREA
Admiral Carrato, I am very interested in the new medical
facility in South Korea. Could you describe that project? It is
a fairly robust project, I understand. Is that correct?
Admiral Carrato. Yes, sir. The project is to replace a
1940's era hospital built under Japanese construction. And it
is a fairly major renovation of that facility. It is a critical
project for us, given its location, and fairly comprehensive,
replacement, addition, life safety upgrade.
Senator Burns. Now, did we raze part of that and then are
starting from the ground up, or is it strictly all renovation
of the existing structure?
Admiral Carrato. It is a combination. We will be doing some
renovation within the existing walls. And then there will
actually be some additions that we will be constructing, as
well.
Senator Burns. We have, as you know, passed a bill a couple
of weeks ago dealing with pay and retirement and also health
care. Could you give me your overview; is TRICARE working?
Admiral Carrato. Yes.
Senator Burns. Now, I get a few complaints every now and
again. I get a letter or two. I would just like it if you could
give me an overview of that. And I know maybe that does not
fall under your area of expertise.
Admiral Carrato. Actually, sir, it does. Let me give you
the short version of, is TRICARE working. As you know, TRICARE
is a major overhaul of the military health system. And any time
you have such a large undertaking, which TRICARE is, there are
going to be some growing pains.
We began TRICARE on the West Coast--California, Oregon and
the State of Washington--and where it has had a chance to
mature, we see the beneficiaries are very satisfied with the
program. In our more current start-ups, on the East Coast, we
have had some difficulties. And most of the difficulties fall
really into three major categories. One is claims processing.
And we did have some hearings last week, where that was a major
focus of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.
And we believe that we are taking steps to simplify that claims
processing process, working with our contractors, who are
actually performing that function for us. We think we are on
the right track to addressing that issue.
TRICARE RESPONSE TIME
And I am happy to report that our audited claims processing
performance numbers as of February of this year, all of our
claims processing contractors are meeting or exceeding our
standards.
The other area is telephone, beneficiaries calling up and
being put on hold, not getting accurate information. And,
again, I think that is a symptom of a complex program, a
symptom of a program where we have to hire literally hundreds
of staff to attend to those telephones. And they also have to
be trained on a fairly complex program.
Senator Burns. Not on this automated dial system--in other
words, dial one if you want a flu shot and dial two if you need
an appendix taken out?
Admiral Carrato. We actually do have that, sir. Our
telephone standards are that there must be an automated
response unit that acknowledges a phone call within two rings.
That is easy to do. You can purchase one of those off the
shelf. Our standard to get to a human being, though, is 90
percent of telephone calls have to be connected to a human
within 2 minutes. And we have had some difficulty meeting that
standard. Again, I am happy to report we now are meeting that
standard, on average.
We will have some issues in our newer regions. And it is
isolated with some Monday morning. Again, it is a behavior
change for our customers, our providers, et cetera.
Senator Burns. I just hate those things. I just absolutely
hate them.
Admiral Carrato. Sometimes they are necessary.
Senator Burns. I know.
Admiral Carrato. The other issue that we hear mentioned--
and this actually is an issue that I know was raised in the
State of Montana--is as we bring managed health care to areas
of the country where managed health care has not been
introduced before, in some rural areas, we will have issues
associated with developing adequate networks to support our
TRICARE Prime program. And that is another area that we
continue to work on, is to look at how we can enhance the
delivery system in some of those rural areas.
But I guess that is a very long-winded answer. The short
answer is TRICARE is working. If you look at the more mature
regions, I think it is working quite well. Customer
satisfaction is quite high. We still have some growing pains in
some of our newer regions. And we are working aggressively to
fix it. We are certainly aware of the impact that it could have
on readiness, retention and quality of life.
Senator Burns. But it is not without its warts?
Admiral Carrato. It is not without its warts, no, sir. But
we are working to remove the warts, and working aggressively.
Senator Burns. The reason I asked you about that is
specifically about Montana. We deal with great distances up
there, as you well know. We have got a lot of light between
light bulbs, or a lot of dirt between light bulbs. So, we have
to do that.
DOD SCHOOL ELIGIBILITY
Ms. McGinn, I am interested in education. Those families
that are located off base, in the first place, they can either
send their children to school on base or can they send them to
the public schools of that particular area?
Ms. McGinn. If they are located off base, they generally go
to the public schools surrounding the base. If they are on base
on those installations where we have Department of Defense
schools, then the children are eligible to attend the schools
on base. If they are off base, they are not.
Senator Burns. In other words, if they live off base, then
they are prohibited from sending their children to school on
base; is that correct?
Ms. McGinn. Yes, I believe that is correct.
Senator Burns. Okay. I did not know how that was set up.
Because I am very familiar with impact aid. We have Malstrom
Air Force Base in Great Falls, and of course, that impact aid
is part of that.
Mr. Baillie, I see that there are five projects in the
fiscal year 2000 budget request to replace existing hydrant
fuel systems. Give me an update on that. How is it coming? I
know we have had a few problems in the past, but that
infrastructure is very, very important.
DOD FUEL SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
Mr. Baillie. Absolutely, Senator. And you are correct, five
of our seven projects are fuel system replacements. What we are
talking about are systems that, for the most part, are at least
40 years old, that are not only operationally incapable of
meeting the needs of wide-bodied jet refueling, but, quite
frankly, in many cases, posing several environmental hazards.
There is no leak protection. There is no use of state-of-the-
art materials. A lot of the projects in this year's program are
in places like Alaska, with severe environmental conditions. A
lot of the plumbing, if you will, for these systems is exposed
to those elements.
In addition, at the other temperature spectrum, Guam is a
little bit warmer, but it is very much subject to corrosion
from saltwater. So, what we are attempting to do is, working
with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to prioritize those systems,
both from operational and environmental areas, that need to be
replaced. We have come from about 44 systems in 1992, when DLA
was first assigned the fuels mission in this area, down to, I
believe, about 18 projects left. And at this point, the DLA
Program Objective Memorandum (POM) for the outyears will
address all those remaining projects.
Senator Burns. You are satisfied with the progress we are
making?
Mr. Baillie. Yes, sir, very much so. And we appreciate the
support of this committee in that.
Senator Burns. Tell me a little bit about--there has been
some concern raised among my colleagues, the emphasis on
privatization and the impact that it has on logistics. I happen
to be one of those people that think logistics is--used to be
just a little office, way down at the end of the building, but
logistics now is very important. I think that was highlighted
in 1991, how important they can be, not only with the ability
to carry out a mission in support of ours--it is like General
Higginbotham said, it is not only deploying people, but
bringing them back home again. Logistics plays a tremendous
role in that.
When we start privatization, and some areas have been, in
your opinion, has that impacted our ability to carry out our
mission in the area of logistics?
DLA PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Baillie. I agree, Senator. When I first started work
with what was then the Defense Supply Agency, in a warehouse in
Pennsylvania, logistics was ``get the boxes out the door.'' It
has now evolved into supply chain management. It is very much
more complicated.
The DLA concept of privatization goes back to risk
management, if you will. We like to believe that we are still a
military organization using business tools rather than a
business-type organization. We do some things that Sears
Roebuck, notwithstanding, does not do.
The concept with which we have attempted to approach
privatization says we need to find the best value source using
sound business case approaches. Our three distribution depots--
Columbus, Ohio; Warner-Robbins, Georgia; and Barstow,
California--that are in the process of going up for
privatization review, were chosen as representative samples so
that we could learn from them. We are getting some very good
feedback from the San Antonio, Texas base, which is currently
being operated by a contractor as part of the base closure
process. Costs are well within the contract, and the
performance statistics rival government-operated depots.
That is not to say that you are not correct, sir. There are
concerns here. We are venturing into uncharted waters, if you
will. We have never, in DOD, or at least DLA, let an entire
depot go. We have taken small sub-functions of that. But when
we looked at it from a business proposition, talked to academia
and the private sector, they felt that to get that best value,
we really needed to not carve up a process into sub-functions,
but to take the entire operation itself.
So, we are taking--whether it is with the distribution
depots, the property disposal offices or even some of our fuels
operations--we are taking a very measured, phased approach. We
want to learn up front. And then, from both our successes and
failures, move out where it makes sense, keeping in mind that
the DLA purpose for being is to support that warfighter. And we
need to do what we need to do as far as being a good business,
but whatever we do, we cannot afford to risk the warfighter's
support.
Senator Burns. The ability to warehouse fits your ability
for distribution? Do we still have needs in warehousing?
DISTRIBUTION SPACE
Mr. Baillie. At this point, Senator, we have, quite
frankly, an excess of distribution space. There is about right
now 375 million attainable cubic feet. Attainable cubic feet is
less aisle space and offices and sprinkler clearances and
things like that. We have about 260 million, right now,
occupied cubic feet. We would very much like to see support for
at least one, and hopefully two, more rounds of BRAC. Because
that really is the only way that we can get at those kinds of
excesses.
The excess that I talked about is spread over 19 different
depots. In order for us to truly eliminate the excess to match
our attainable with our occupied, we are probably going to need
to get out of at least one, if not more, of those depots.
Senator Burns. Okay. I think that is about all the
questions that I have. I think there will be other questions
from other members of this subcommittee. I want to thank the
witnesses this morning for their being candid with us. We want
to work with you as we implement this, understanding the
mission that we have in front of us.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
If there are other questions by other committee members, we
would ask you to respond to those Senators and to the
committee.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Admiral Suggs
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
incremental funding
Question. Will this method of advance appropriations and
incremental funding slow down the execution of these projects?
Answer. We will be able to execute the United States Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM) military construction program, but clearly
this adds risk in the execution of our MILCON program. This method of
advance appropriations and incremental funding will require a higher
level of management oversight to ensure there is no slow down in the
execution of these projects.
To execute our construction program under incremental funding we
will need from the Congress: full authorization for each project,
advance appropriations for fiscal year 2001 and the necessary
reprogramming flexibility. We need full authorization to allow for
award of the full project scope in one contract. The advance
appropriation for fiscal year 2001 will ensure the money is available
on the first day of the new fiscal year and allow construction to
proceed into the second year without interruption. We need the
reprogramming flexibility, based on the ``authorized'' amount, to
transfer the limited funds provided in fiscal year 2000 between
projects as work progresses. This flexibility is required because some
projects may proceed faster due to construction schedule variations or
the need to start early to meet mission priorities.
Question. What will be the impact to your MILCON program if the
Congress does not provide advance appropriations?
Answer. Advance appropriations are the key to providing a
continuous funding stream for each construction contract across the
fiscal year divide. If advance appropriations are not available, we
anticipate more fourth quarter awards in order to assure that we have
funds on hand to bridge the gap between fiscal years. We also
anticipate higher contractor costs due to funding uncertainties.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
stennis small craft training complex
Question. Admiral Suggs, in your fiscal year 00 budget you have
identified 6 projects for funding. It appears that the appropriated
amount requested, as opposed to the total authorization request, has
been spread evenly between all of the projects except for the Stennis
Small Craft Training Complex. Can you tell the subcommittee why this
project is fully funded while the others have to await advance
appropriations?
Answer. Instructions that instituted incremental funding predated
the decision to relocate the Naval Small Craft Instruction and
Technical Training School (NAVSCIATTS) to Stennis. Subsequently, the
Department directed USSOCOM to establish the school and provided the
necessary MILCON funds. Since the NAVSCIATTS decision was directive in
nature, we did not incrementally fund the construction project to
insure an expeditious completion of the required facilities.
Question. Will any of the other 5 projects significantly suffer
without advanced appropriations?
Answer. Advance appropriations are the key to providing a
continuous funding stream for each construction contract across the
fiscal year divide. If advance appropriations are not available, we
anticipate more fourth quarter awards in order to assure that we have
funds on hand to bridge the gap. We also anticipate higher contractor
costs due to funding uncertainties.
______
Questions Submitted to Admiral Carrato
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
incremental funding
Question. Admiral Carrato, we often incrementally fund big medical
projects because of the size and cost. However, with split year funding
for all projects contained in the budget--regardless of their size,
what challenges are you anticipating as you execute these projects?
Answer. There are numerous challenges in executing split year
funded versus fully funded projects due to uncertainty about the amount
and timeliness of the second year funding. We believe we can
successfully execute the fiscal year 2000 Medical Military Construction
Program, as submitted in the President's Budget, if the advanced
appropriations authority for fiscal year 2001 is enacted in the fiscal
year 2000 Military Construction Appropriation Act as requested. This
advanced appropriations authority will assure us and the contractor
community that we will have the funding needed to complete the projects
begun in fiscal year 2000. Our construction agents tell us that there
is some risk involved with increased cost of construction due to delays
in awarding contracts in the latter part of the year. We cannot totally
avoid this risk but we will work diligently to minimize it. Failure to
receive the requested fiscal year 2001 advanced appropriations
authority in fiscal year 2000 will cause us to defer much needed
projects by as much as one year until we receive the remainder of funds
in fiscal year 2001 Appropriation Bills.
Question. Admiral Carrato, you have a fairly robust medical
military construction program in fiscal year 2000. What is the backlog
of your medical/dental con struction/renovati on requirements ?
Answer. This program reflects our minimum medical facilities
construction requirements within the constraints of the overall
Departmental requirements for fiscal year 2000. This is based on the
fact that we currently have a backlog of over $2 billion in military
construction alone for construction/renovation of our medical/dental
facilities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Stevens
bassett army hospital
Question. Admiral Carrato, I understand that the first phase of
funding for the Bassett Army Hospital is in the fiscal year 2000
budget. What is the department's funding strategy for this project and
when is it to be completed?
Answer. The Bassett Army Community Hospital is slated to start
construction in fiscal year 2000 based on the following funding
strategy:
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000........................ 1 $18
Fiscal year 2001........................ 2 56
Fiscal year 2002........................ 3 34
Fiscal year 2003........................ 4 20
Fiscal year 2004........................ 5 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have requested a full authorization of $133 million for this
project in fiscal year 2000. The construction of the project is
expected to be complete in the summer of 2004.
Question. Is there funding in the budget or in the Future Years
Defense Plan (FYDP) to demolish the existing Bassett Hospital located
at Fort Wainwright, Alaska?
Answer. Yes. The funding for the demolition of existing Basset Army
Community Hospital at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, is included in the last
two phases (Phases 4& 5) of the project in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal
year 2004.
______
Questions Submitted to Mr. Baillie
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
dla hydrant fuel systems
Question. Mr. Baillie, I see that there are five projects in the
fiscal year 2000 budget to replace existing Hydrant Fuel Systems.
Please describe the long-term plan to replace the aging DOD fuel
infrastructure?
Answer. Starting with the fiscal year 1996 MILCON program, DLA
assumed additional funding responsibilities from the Services for base-
level and intermediate petroleum storage and hydrant systems. The
majority of the fuel facilities DLA inherited were deteriorated, 40- to
50-year-old systems. From fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1999,
DLA has aggressively replaced this decaying infrastructure by investing
$278 million in new and revitalized fuel systems. However, the current
estimated backlog of needed fuel projects remains at over $1 billion.
In the current DOD Future Year Development Plan (FYDP; fiscal year
2000-2005), DLA plans to invest an additional $630 million for
strategic en route mobility projects to enhance the Nation's
warfighting capabilities, for environmental compliance and protection,
and for other operational projects to replace aging fuel systems. This
proposed plan will fund the remaining 21 strategic en route fuel
projects by fiscal year 2005 and all currently identified projects to
correct non-compliant environmental conditions at our fuel activities
Nevertheless, the remaining backlog of fuel infrastructure
requirements will continue to be a significant challenge that must be
addressed in future FYDPs. With this in mind, DLA and the Military
Services are aggressively pursuing alternate sources to military
construction funding. These alternatives include seeking host-nation
funding, privatizing fuel functions, or developing maintenance and
repair projects instead of MILCON. These initiatives are expected to
result in a modest reduction in fuel MILCON requirements.
incremental funding
Question. Mr. Baillie, will incremental funding of these projects
slow down their ultimate execution and increase their cost?
Answer. As we mentioned in our verbal testimony, we know that
incremental funding, if approved, provides some risks. We expect the
projects will be slowed to a limited extent. But with the relatively
small program we have and talented, dedicated people running these
projects, we think we can continue to successfully execute these
projects. Our past performance shows we have a solid record of project
execution in previous years.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Stevens
dla projects in alaska
Question. Mr. Baillie, I understand that there are two Alaska
projects in your fiscal year 2000 budget submission. Can you explain
why these two projects are so important to our national military
strategy?
Answer. The Commanders In Chief's (CINCs) have identified numerous
strategic airlift en route support fuel infrastructure shortfalls as a
result of a Joint Warfighting Capabilities Assessment (JWCA) review.
This review revealed that with reduced overseas presence, enhancements
were required to the remaining enroute refueling infrastructure to
support the National Military Strategy. The two projects in Alaska are
key locations for a CONUS to Far East deployment of forces based on
weather, route vulnerability, airfield support, and other factors.
incremental funding
Question. Mr. Baillie, will incremental funding of these projects
slow down their ultimate execution and increase the cost?
Answer. As we mentioned in our verbal testimony, we know that
incremental funding, if approved, provides some risks. We expect the
projects will be slowed to a limited extent. But with the relatively
small program we have and talented, dedicated people running these
projects, we think we can continue to successfully execute these
projects. Our past performance shows we have a solid record of project
execution in previous years.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
funding formula
Question. Can you explain the formula you used to arrive at the
fiscal year 2000 appropriated amount you are requesting for the five
hydrant fuel system projects in your budget? It appears to me that you
are looking for a down payment ranging from as little as 11 percent to
as much as 35 percent. Why the spread?
Answer. We did not apply a set percentage for determining the
fiscal year 2000 funding request for each project. Rather, we applied
the amount allocated to us by the Department based on project
priorities and site-specific factors that will influence expected
outlays in fiscal year 2000. These factors include the start and
duration of diverse construction seasons, expected material ordering
and transportation lag times, and constraints due to adjacent
construction projects at some of these sites. The fiscal year 2000
program request was ultimately based on engineering judgement and the
variable effects of these factors on the projects and funds available.
______
Questions Submitted to Ms. McGinn
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
dod dependent schools
Question. Ms. McGinn, I am pleased that DOD has begun an initiative
to improve the condition of the DODDS schools. Many are inadequate and
need serious attention. Please describe your backlog of construction
and renovation projects?
Answer. The following is a list of projects critical to DODEA
(DODDS/DDESS) that are not funded in the fiscal year 2000 budget, but
that are included in the Future Years Defense Plan. The total is
approximately $174.7 million as shown below.
In Thousands
Construct Hohenfels HS, Wuerzburg, GE......................... $13,100
Replace Russell ES, Camp Lejeune, NC.......................... 7,100
Classroom Addition, Lakenheath ES, UK......................... 533
Classroom Addition, Mannheim ES, Heidelberg, GE............... 700
Classroom Addition, Ramstein ES, GE........................... 700
Classroom Addition, Ernest J. King ES/MS, Japan............... 769
Classroom Addition, Wetzel ES, Kaiserslautern, GE............. 1,163
Classroom Addition, Schweinfurt ES, Wuerzburg, GE............. 1,207
Classroom Addition, Shirley Lanham ES, Japan.................. 1,076
Classroom Addition, Lincoln ES, Ft Campbell, KY............... 768
Classroom Addition, Tarawa II ES, Camp Lejeune, NC............ 513
Classroom Addition, Antilles ES, Ft Buchanan, PR.............. 769
Classroom Addition, Freddie Stowers ES, Ft Benning, GA........ 513
Classroom Addition, Barkley ES, Ft Campbell, KY............... 1,003
Classroom Addition, Jackson ES, Ft Campbell, KY............... 1,003
Construct Lakenheath MS, UK................................... 16,298
Construct Addition, Ramstein HS, GE........................... 1,900
Additions & Renovations, Sigonella E/MS, Italy................ 7,200
Construction Addition, Mark Twain ES, Heidelberg, GE.......... 2,200
Additions & Renovations, Rota HS, Spain....................... 15,500
Construct Seoul MS, Korea..................................... 17,480
Replace Berkley Manor ES, Camp Lejeune, NC.................... 7,550
Additions & Renovations, Delalio ES, Camp Lejeune, NC......... 3,900
Additions & Renovations, Stone Street ES, Camp Lejeune, NC.... 5,100
Replace Tarawa I ES, Camp Lejeune, NC......................... 6,466
Replace Russell ES, Quantico, VA.............................. 6,600
Addition to Wassom ES, Ft Campbell, KY........................ 4,350
FY02 Construction for PTR/Kindergarten initiative-various
locations................................................. 20,300
FY03 Construction for PTR/Kindergarten initiative-various
locations................................................. 20,200
FY01 Unspecified Minor Construction........................... 2,691
FY03 Unspecified Minor Construction........................... 4,800
FY04 Unspecified Minor Construction........................... 1,236
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 174,708
fitness centers
Question. How do fitness centers equate to and impact quality of
life for service personnel and their families? Why is it important
these facilities be located on the bases and installations?
Answer. It seems there is greater attention placed on quality of
life facilities, such as fitness centers in the fiscal year 2000
budget. Maintaining a physically fit military force is important to
readiness. In addition, having an active military community, including
both Service members and their families, forms a major part of health
promotion activities. Further, it helps keep health costs down and
productivity up. Service members and their families tell us in survey
after survey that fitness centers are their number one Morale, Welfare
and Recreation (MOOR) and leisure activity.
The Marsh Commission Quality of Life report identified significant
fitness facility deficiencies. The Task Force concluded that fitness
centers aided recruiting, retention, readiness and productivity and
were important to overall quality of life--particularly among single
junior enlisted personnel. This report also indicated that fitness is
the most important MWR program having a positive effect on retention.
As in the civilian community, successful recreational activities must
be located where people live, work, and play. Our installations are the
hub where Service members and their families build a sense of
community. Fitness centers must be on installations because it makes
their use by members more convenient, thereby encouraging regular and
frequent exercise and the adoption of healthy, positive lifestyles.
Maintaining physical fitness is part of the daily work requirement for
our military force. Members are required to partake in some form of
fitness training or activity on an ongoing basis to maintain high
fitness levels and combat readiness. Easy accessibility to fitness
centers is critical because many junior enlisted lack the private
transportation required to travel significant distances to exercise.
The best time for many Service members to exercise is during noon meal
time or directly after work; the quality and duration of one's workout
is directly affected by the distance.
fitness center backlog
Question. What is the backlog for building and renovating fitness
centers within the military services?
Answer. In 1997, the Department launched a major initiative that
focused on improving physical fitness. This initiative, called
``Operation Be Fit,'' includes 5 major actions aimed at improving
fitness activities. One of those actions is to address the serious
facility deficiencies cited in the Marsh Commission report. As part of
this facility improvement action, OSD conducted a survey of the
Department's fitness facilities. This installation level survey
identified 122 fitness facilities that were in poor condition. The
survey instrument specifically instructed the installation to have the
local engineer determine if the fitness facility was in excellent, good
or poor condition, according to engineering criteria. These 122 poor
facilities represented almost a quarter of all fitness facilities that
our people used to stay fit and for recreation. The number of poor
facilities has been reduced and will be reduced further if the eleven
facilities requested in the fiscal year 2000 MILCON are approved.
The following is a list of projects critical to the Services'
fitness centers, that are not funded in the fiscal year 2000 budget,
but are included in the Future Years Defense Plan. The total is
approximately $363 million as shown below.
In Millions
Bamberg, GE....................................................... $6.00
Ft. Knox, KY...................................................... 6.20
Ft. Bragg, NC (Ctr 1)............................................. 6.20
Camp Stanley, KR.................................................. 6.00
Ft. McNair, Wash D.C.............................................. 7.80
Weisbaden, GE..................................................... 6.00
Ft. Hood, TX...................................................... 6.20
Ft. Bragg, NC (Ctr 2)............................................. 6.20
Kaiserslautern, GE................................................ 6.00
Camp Kyle, KR..................................................... 6.00
Ft. Benning, GA................................................... 10.00
Atlanta, GA....................................................... 2.92
WPS Charleston, SC................................................ 4.83
Diego Garcia...................................................... 5.55
Dahlgren, VA...................................................... 5.87
Roosevelt Roads, PR............................................... 7.29
ASW San Diego, CA................................................. 3.46
Monterey, CA...................................................... 3.87
Navy Replacement Projects......................................... 1.96
HAS Norfolk, VA................................................... 9.44
Newport, VA....................................................... 8.76
Athens, GA........................................................ 2.67
Corry Station, FL (Ctr 1)......................................... 1.66
Fallon, NV........................................................ 4.80
Port Hueneme, CA.................................................. 5.63
Lemore, CA........................................................ 5.44
Dam Neck, VA...................................................... 1.85
Gulfport, MS...................................................... 3.03
Corry Station (Ctr 2)............................................. 1.11
E1 Centro, CA..................................................... 4.79
Bangor, ME........................................................ 0.92
Davis Monthan AFB, AZ............................................. 7.60
McGuire AFB, NJ................................................... 10.50
Dover AFB, DE..................................................... 5.00
McChord AFB, WA................................................... 5.40
Lackland AFB, TX.................................................. 3.00
Little Rock, AR................................................... 7.50
Anderson AFB, GU.................................................. 8.20
Tinker AFB, OK.................................................... 4.10
Scott AFB, IL..................................................... 7.75
Dyess AFB, TX..................................................... 6.45
RAF Mildenhall.................................................... 5.00
Shaw AFB, SC...................................................... 1.50
Hanscom AFB, MA................................................... 4.00
Minot AFB, ND..................................................... 4.25
Beale AFB, CA..................................................... 6.65
Seymour-Johnson AFB, NC........................................... 5.50
Ramstein AFB, GE.................................................. 6.00
Hickam AFB, HI.................................................... 10.00
Charleston AFB, SC................................................ 1.90
Elmendorf AFB, AK................................................. 1.70
Randolph AFB, TX.................................................. 10.20
Nellis AFB, NV.................................................... 2.00
Moody AFB, GA..................................................... 3.20
Eielson AFB, AK................................................... 9.90
Andrews AFB, MD................................................... 9.00
Spangdahlem, AFB, GE.............................................. 1.70
Bolling AFB, Wash D.C............................................. 9.00
Quantico, VA...................................................... 7.90
Lejeune, NC (Ctr 2)............................................... 3.95
Pendleton, CA (Ctr 1)............................................. 4.72
Cherry Point, NC.................................................. 3.31
Miramar, CA....................................................... 4.15
Pendleton, CA (Ctr 2)............................................. 11.69
Yuma, AZ.......................................................... 0.83
Lejuene, NC (Ctr 3)............................................... 2.58
Kaneohe, HI....................................................... 8.38
______
Total.......................................................362.96
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Burns. The next hearing of the subcommittee will
take place on March the 23, when we will hear from the Army and
the Air Force. We certainly appreciate your cooperation this
morning and your good work. We appreciate all that you do.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., Thursday, March 16, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 11 a.m., Tuesday,
March 23.]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 11 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Craig, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
STATEMENT OF MAHLON APGAR, IV, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MAJOR GENERAL MILTON HUNTER, DIRECTOR OF MILITARY PROGRAMS,
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP, JR., ASSISTANT CHIEF OF
STAFF FOR INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT
BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES R. HELMLY, DEPUTY CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE,
OFFICE CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE
BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL J. SQUIER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARMY
NATIONAL GUARD
opening statement
Senator Burns. We will call the committee to order.
This morning we will hear testimony of the Military
Construction, Family Housing, the Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) and Reserve component programs from both the Army and
the Air Force. I welcome all of you here this morning. We will
first hear from the United States Army.
I am pleased to have before us the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Installations and Environment. Is that Mahone?
Mr. Apgar. Mahlon.
Senator Burns. Mahlon----
Mr. Apgar. I am called Sandy, sir, please.
Senator Burns [continuing]. Apgar.
Mr. Apgar. Correct.
Senator Burns. I will tell you that we have quite a lot of
concern, as you well know, on military construction and the way
that we are funding our 2000 military construction budget.
Incremental funding over the last two-year period will slow
execution of these critical projects, in my estimate.
Ultimately, it will cost the American taxpayer more money,
as we expect contractors to assume more of the risk associated
with building facilities for the Department. I am not all that
big of a fan of it, but yet we are not written in stone, and we
will listen to what you have in mind. Senior Defense officials
tell me that this is a one-time-only financing technique,
advanced appropriations for all projects; however, the same
fiscal challenges that the Department faced in putting together
the fiscal year 2000 budget will still be there in years to
come.
I think the danger will be that we begin not fully funding
military construction up front but spread the costs over two,
three, and even five years, and I have some concern with that.
How do we deal with BRAC if there is future base closings, and
that may be a distinct possibility. So I am not a big fan of
incremental funding, and believe this is the wrong way for the
Department to proceed.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
I will forego the rest of my statement, and I will enter my
statement and Senator Murray's statement into the record.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Burns
The Subcommittee will come to order. This morning we will hear
testimony on the Military Construction, Family Housing, BRAC and
Reserve Component programs for both the Army and the Air Force.
We will first hear from the Department of the Army.
We are pleased to have before us this morning, the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment, Mahlon Apgar.
I remain concerned with the way the Department of Defense has
funded the fiscal year 2000 Military Construction budget.
Incremental funding over a two-year period will slow execution of
these critical projects. Ultimately, it will cost the American
taxpayers more money as we expect contractors to assume more of the
risk associated with building facilities for the department.
Senior defense officials tell me that this is a one-time only
financing technique--advance appropriations of all projects. However,
the same fiscal challenges that the department faced in putting
together the fiscal year 2000 budget will still be there in years to
come.
The danger will be that we begin not to fully fund Military
Construction up front but spread the costs over two, three or even five
years.
I could foresee a time when we have many projects on the books but
not enough money to begin construction on any of them.
I oppose incremental funding and believe it is the wrong way for
the department to proceed.
It will strike a major blow to revitalizing our aging
infrastructure and improving quality of life for service members and
their families.
I can assure you that we will approach this situation with great
care and consideration we decide how to proceed with this budget.
I want to commend you and the Army for your continued commitment
toward improving the quality of life for single soldiers. However, I am
concerned with the absence of funding in the budget for family housing
for the Army, not only in the fiscal year 2000 budget but also in the
out year. We will discuss this later when we get to questions.
We look forward to working with you to ensure that the Army's most
critical requirements are met in this budget.
Secretary Apgar, I would ask you to keep your statement brief
because we will also hear from the Air Force later this morning.
Please be advised that your statement will be included in its
entirety for the record.
Sir, before we proceed, would you introduce the representatives
that are with you today from the Army?
I would like to turn to the ranking member, Senator Murray, for any
comments that she might like to make at this time.
Secretary Apgar, please proceed.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Murray
Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing to discuss the
Fiscal Year 2000 Military Construction programs of the Army and Air
Force. I welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to hearing their
testimony.
This is a crucial year for the programs that our subcommittee
oversees. The Congress has heard a steady drumbeat of testimony from
military and civilian defense leaders over the past several months
regarding threats to the readiness of our armed forces.
Pay and retirement benefits are said to be inadequate. Recruitment
and retention are down, maintenance and repair costs are up, and morale
among the troops is strained.
The Defense Department responded to these pressures by seeking a
substantial increase in the defense budget for fiscal year 2000, part
of which is to be financed by stretching out the funding for fiscal
year 2000 military construction projects over two years.
While I am sure it is well-intentioned, I also believe that this is
a very risky strategy. We have heard from previous witnesses before
this subcommittee that incremental funding could have a detrimental
effect on the pace of Military Construction. Contractors are expected
to view this system with skepticism, construction costs are likely to
increase, and at least some projects are going to end up behind
schedule.
Given these potential drawbacks, I have serious reservations about
incremental funding and the impact it could have on absolutely
essential Military Construction projects and quality of life programs.
I have heard time and again from witnesses before this subcommittee
about the importance of quality of life projects to the men and women
who serve in our armed forces. I have visited the military bases in my
state of Washington and elsewhere in this country. I have seen first-
hand examples of crumbling infrastructure and inadequate facilities. I
have seen first-hand the need for barracks, family housing, child care
facilities, schools, clinics and other family support services.
These items are crucial components of military readiness, and we
cannot afford to shortchange them or delay them.
I fear that whether we go with some kind of incremental funding
program or whether we fully fund a reduced number of projects, the
result will be the same--vital military construction projects will go
begging, and the men and women who serve in our military will see a
further decline in the quality of life that we provide for them and
their families.
Clearly, we have our work cut out for us. We must work within
existing budget constraints.
We must accept the fact that Military Construction is but one
element of a complex and comprehensive defense program.
We must set priorities. We must allocate our resources carefully.
But, for the good of our military and the benefit of our national
security, we cannot afford to lose our focus on essential quality of
life improvements.
I commend our witnesses today, and indeed all of the services, for
the recognition that they have given to the importance of quality of
life initiatives, and for their efforts to improve quality of life
programs in the face of severe budget pressures from readiness and
personnel accounts.
I appreciate the emphasis that the chairman of this subcommittee
has placed on quality of life improvements.
I commend our witnesses today, and indeed all of the services, for
the recognition that they have given to the importance of quality of
life initiatives, and for their efforts to improve quality of life
programs in the face of severe budget pressures from readiness and
personnel accounts.
I appreciate the emphasis that the chairman of this subcommittee
has placed on quality of life improvements.
Through his efforts, he has made a direct and significant
contribution to the lives of many of the men and women who are serving
in the U.S. military today.
I thank him for his support, and I look forward to working with him
and with the services to find the best possible solution to meeting the
myriad of Military Construction and other needs of the armed forces.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. This morning we have General Antwerp,
General Hunter, and General Squier, and General Helmly. We
welcome you this morning, and we would welcome your statements
at this time.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming this morning.
STATEMENT OF MAHLON APGAR
Mr. Apgar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to
appear before you and the committee to discuss the Army's
budget request for fiscal year 2000 and our military
construction program. This is my first appearance before the
committee, and I pledge to work closely with you in addressing
the many challenges in our Military Construction (MILCON)
programs. I hope you will call me at any time with your
concerns or questions you may have about our policies and
programs.
My written statement provides in-depth details of our
military construction budget request. In it we balance Army
objectives for modernization, readiness, and quality of life,
and support our highest priorities, barracks and family
housing, strategic mobility, reserve component construction,
real property maintenance, and base closures and realignments,
and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will submit the full
statement for the record and make some brief comments to
highlight our progress.
Senator Burns. All of your statements will be made part of
the record.
Mr. Apgar. Thank you, sir. First, barracks modernization is
a major success. With your support, 53 percent of our single-
soldier housing is funded to meet or approximate the new one-
plus-one standard, and while we still have some way to go,
especially overseas, we are on schedule to complete Army-wide
barracks modernization by 2008.
Our budget also emphasizes strategic mobility; that is, the
platform for Army readiness. These force projection projects
will provide the necessary infrastructure, specifically rail
and airfield improvements, to facilitate movement of our troops
and their equipment to essential air and sea ports. The budget
also supports reserve component construction.
For the Army National Guard we have budgeted for a
readiness center, three maintenance support facilities, and one
training facility. For the Army Reserve, we have three new Army
Reserve centers, a regional maintenance training facility, and
other critical projects.
Real property maintenance is our primary account for
maintaining the Army's infrastructure. Because these resources
protect the facilities that your committee approves, your
support of the funding levels we have requested in our
operations and maintenance budget will reinforce our MILCON
programs. We hope you will endorse this funding.
In our current base closure and realignment program, three
out of four rounds of base closures will be completed by the
end of this fiscal year, and we will complete the final round
of closures and realignments by the end of fiscal year 2001. We
continue to believe that the BRAC process is the best way to
dispose of unneeded infrastructure and to reshape our
installations.
We will achieve nearly a billion dollars a year in annual
savings once our current program is fully implemented, but we
must do more to reduce the costs of maintaining excess
infrastructure and to redeploy these resources for our critical
readiness requirements.
Finally, I would like to clarify our intent and plans
concerning the Army's housing privatization program. This is a
major Administration priority, and it is one of the main
reasons I was asked to take this office, but it has become the
subject of some controversy in recent weeks. I have come to
realize that we have not discussed our concepts and plans with
you and others in Congress as much as we should have.
So I want to underscore my commitment to forging a closer
dialogue with you in the coming months on this critical
program.
As you know, the Army has an acute family housing problem.
A huge backlog of substandard houses must be renovated, a
substantial housing deficit, especially for junior enlisted
soldiers, must be eliminated, and a large ongoing maintenance
requirement must be satisfied.
It is imperative to attract and maintain a trained and
ready Army and sustain the selfless service of our soldiers.
They demand that we solve this complex problem by providing
their families with better places in which to live. I consider
this basic institutional responsibility as my most important
professional and personal challenge in this office and,
accordingly, have pressed forward in the past eight months with
great urgency to design and test an Army privatization program
that I believe will substantially help the Army, our soldiers,
and their families.
I am pleased to report that the home building and
development industry has shown a great interest in the program,
and the Army leadership has expressed its support.
Shortly after taking office last June I visited Forts
Carson and Lewis with senior Army military and civilian
executives to see the problems firsthand through the eyes of
soldiers and their families, and to gauge the priorities and
concerns of the local commands, and since then have done the
same at ten other installations in the U.S., and Korea,
including Forts Hood, Meade, Shafter, and Schofield Barracks.
Frankly, I was appalled at some of the conditions I saw,
but I was also impressed with the dedication of the troops, the
understanding of their families, and the resolve of the local
command teams to help them.
In response, we mustered a task force of Army and private
sector experts to help us forge a strategy designed both to
attract private capital to fund improvements, and to enlist
private enterprise to revitalize our residential neighborhoods.
In my judgment, sufficient private capital will be
available to achieve our objectives if we maximize the Army's
advantage of scale in using the privatization tools Congress
has given us, but privatization means more than capital.
Capital alone is not enough. We have to engage the four E's.
I call them the entrepreneurship, the energy, the
efficiency, and the expertise of the world's most effective
home building and real estate industry to help us house the
world's best Army in the quality communities they deserve. That
is why we renamed our housing privatization program from
Capital Ventures Initiative (CVI), which focuses on financing,
to Residential Communities Initiative (RCI), which emphasizes
our overriding goal, to enhance the quality of life for
soldiers and their families by creating and sustaining
attractive, affordable residential communities on Army posts.
RCI uses the tools provided by Congress to achieve this
goal, by leveraging the experience and creativity of the
development industry, as well as their capital. We believe that
most Army family housing needs in the U.S. can be met through
RCI, but at this time we would like to test our concept at five
installations. We will continue to use traditional MILCON to
fund all of those projects in the U.S. where privatization is
not feasible, and all housing projects overseas, where the
privatization authorities do not apply.
As part of our pilot program we are pursuing three changes
in policy and practices. First, our management focus is
shifting from housing production to community development.
Each project will include the features and amenities that
most Americans enjoy in their neighborhoods, such as extensive
landscaping, community centers, recreation facilities, and
ongoing maintenance of public space as well as housing
renovation and construction.
The second change is transforming our business
relationships from contracting to partnering. In traditional
military construction projects the Army is the developer. We
provide the funds, take the risks, and bid the contracts, but
when the houses are built, the contractor is finished, and the
Army maintains and manages the completed project usually
through separate contractors.
In RCI, the Army will become a partner with private
developers. Each developer will arrange the project financing
for private investors, take the business risks, hire and manage
the contractors, and provide ongoing services with specific
performance measures that align the developer's goals with the
Army's.
The third major shift, from procuring the contractor,
through a request for proposal, to selecting a partner through
a request for qualifications, is a consequence of the first two
changes, and is itself an important reform of the procurement
process.
In the typical request for proposal (RFP) the Army details
the requirements for executing a project and selects the
contractor based on his bid proposal. The contractor cannot
suggest improvements to these specifications until the contract
award is made, but by then he has no incentive to do so and
would only delay the project.
In our proposed request for quote (RFQ), the Army will
define the qualifications for selecting the developing partner,
experienced track record, financial resources, management
capabilities, and so on, and then the Army and selected
developer together will jointly prepare the best plan for
project execution, and then submit that plan for congressional
review.
The RFQ process will enable the Army to benefit from the
industry's creativity and experience, encourage the developer
to innovate wherever possible throughout the project, and
eliminate delays in execution. We designed the RFQ specifically
to broaden competition by making it easier and cheaper for
developers to enter the program. Those who responded to the RFP
in Fort Carson, for example, have told us that they spent
anywhere from $300,000 to over $1 million.
The RFQ tests we have done suggest that people can enter--
experienced, qualified developers and managers can enter for
sums in the range of $10,000 to $25,000. That factor alone,
together with the simplicity, will greatly broaden competition.
The RFQ process is basically an inexpensive way for the
Army to acquire information and especially insights from
experienced developers, and then to determine the boundaries of
a long-term business relationship.
The dialogue between the developer, the Army, and other
stakeholders will result in a plan for each installation that
shows how much will be invested, how many houses and other
facilities will be built and renovated, and how maintenance and
other operations will be managed to meet our critical housing
needs and create family communities for which we can all be
proud.
In closing these opening comments, Mr. Chairman, may I
reaffirm my commitment to work closely with you and your staff
to make the Residential Communities Initiative succeed.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you. We will be pleased to respond to your questions.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mahol Apgar, IV
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 2000. This request
includes initiatives of considerable importance to America's Army, as
well as this committee, and we appreciate the opportunity to report on
them to you.
Our statement is in four parts:
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 2000. This budget provides
construction and family housing resources essential to support your
Army's role in our National Military Strategy.
The program presented herein requests fiscal year 2000
appropriations of $656,003,000 for Military Construction, Army (MCA)
and $1,112,083,000 for Army Family Housing (AFH); also requested is an
advance appropriation of $659,536,000 for MCA and $43,991,000 for AFH.
The companion request for authorization in fiscal year 2000 includes
$1,117,505,000 for MCA and $1,158,980 for AFH. The fiscal year 2000
request for authorization of appropriations is $656,003,000 for MCA and
$1,112,083,000 for AFH. There is no request this year for the
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense.
America's Army is the most capable Army in the world today. The
soldiers of the active component, the National Guard, and the Army
Reserve, are joined by the civilian employees and family members to
form the ``Total Army.'' The Army stands ready today, as our
predecessors have for over 223 years, to fight and win our Nation's
wars. We are currently conducting operations throughout the world to
shape the international environment and to promote peace and
prosperity. On any given day in fiscal year 1998, over 28,000 of our
soldiers were deployed away from their home stations to more than 70
countries around the world, conducting operations in support of the
National Military Strategy.
We must be ready to respond wherever our interests are threatened
around the world. To do this, we must maintain sufficient forces,
sufficient strategic air and sealift to project power rapidly,
sufficient prepositioned assets to cut down deployment times for
initial response forces, and sufficient installations from which to
project our forces.
The requirements of military service demand unique sacrifices from
military members, their families and the civilians who work with them.
One of the imperatives 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 nucleus of our Army. 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 that provide
our soldiers and their families better places to work and live are key
to our focus. The commitment to taking care of soldiers benefits our
Nation by fostering strong families and safer communities.
Now, I would like to discuss the Army's facilities strategy for
fiscal year 2000 and beyond.
facilities strategy
A world-class Army deserves world-class facilities. The Army's
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.
The Army's facilities strategy is threefold. First, we must focus
our investment on the most important facilities because our resources
are limited. To do this we must identify required facilities,
infrastructure and support services, and then focus our resources on
those to assure the desired level of readiness. Second, we must divest
all unneeded real estate. Third, we must reduce the total cost required
to support our facilities and related services, including maintenance
of our real estate inventory.
As part of our effort to better focus our investment, we have
developed a decision support tool, the Installation Status Report (ISR)
to help formulate and monitor our facilities strategy. We use it to
assess the status of our facilities' condition. This identifies
critical areas to consider in 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. Our current facilities reduction program and base
realignment and closure process will result in disposal of over 200
million square feet in the United States by 2003. We continue to
demolish one square foot for every square foot constructed and began
reducing our leasing costs in fiscal year 1998 by $13,900,000. By 2003,
with our overseas reductions included, the Army will have disposed of
over 400 million square feet from its fiscal year 1990 peak of
1,157,700,000 square feet.
We are looking for innovative ways to reduce the cost of our
facilities, including privatization or outsourcing of certain
functions. One example is installation utilities systems. Our goal is
to privatize all utility systems, where it is economically feasible, by
2003, including those supporting reserve components and overseas,
except those needed for unique security reasons. 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 2000-2005, the Army plans to achieve over $3
billion in estimated savings from our Major Commands with United States
installations to provide additional resources for force modernization
and other high priorities. These reductions are based on estimated
savings derived from performing A-76 cost competition studies of
commercial activities comprising about 73,000 positions during fiscal
years 1997-2002. The Army's primary challenge is to accomplish these
cost-effective measures as soon as possible.
Next, I will discuss the highlights of the budget.
advance appropriations
In order to free up resources required to address serious
requirements in readiness funding, the fiscal year 2000 construction
program has been incrementally funded by authorizing each project and
requesting advance appropriations to fund it.
We are requesting full authorization for all new fiscal year 2000
projects, but only the appropriations that can be spent in the first
year. In most cases, this amounts to approximately 15 percent of the
project. For the Army, the percentage is based on historical, first-
year outlay rates and includes an additional percentage for risk and
flexibility. We are also requesting fiscal year 2001 advance
appropriations for the balance of the funding requirement.
military construction, army (mca)
We are focusing on four major categories of projects: mission
facilities; quality of life; support programs such as infrastructure
and environment; and chemical demilitarization. I will explain each
area in turn.
mission facilities
In fiscal year 2000, there are thirteen mission facility projects,
including the Army's Strategic Mobility Program (ASMP), and the
Simulator Facility Program. We are requesting full authorization of
$171,650,000, with appropriations and authorization of appropriations
of $42,510,000. Advance appropriations for the balance of the projects
are requested for fiscal year 2001.
Army Strategic Mobility Program
Our budget request continues the program to upgrade our strategic
mobility infrastructure enabling the Army to maintain the best possible
power projection platforms. We are requesting full authorization of
$161,050,000 with appropriations and authorization of appropriations of
$40,910,000. Advance appropriations for the balance of the projects are
requested for fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2000 projects will
complete 68 percent (based on authorization) of the Strategic Mobility
program that is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2003.
Our fiscal year 2000 request includes the second phase of the
railhead loading facility at Fort Hood that was fully authorized last
year. We are requesting an appropriation and authorization of
appropriations of $14,800,000 to complete the project.
In addition to the above project we are planning to construct two
other projects at Fort Hood: a fixed wing aircraft parking apron and a
deployment ready reactive field. At Fort Bliss, we are constructing an
air deployment facility complex, an aircraft loading apron, and an
ammunition hot load facility. We are continuing to upgrade the
facilities at Fort Bragg by constructing a heavy drop rigging facility.
Additional projects include a rail and containerization facility at
Fort Sill, an ammunition holding area at Fort Benning and an ammunition
surveillance facility at Sunny Point Military Ocean Terminal.
We are continuing to improve our depot capability with a rail yard
infrastructure improvement project and ammunition road infrastructure
project at McAlester Army Depot, an ammunition surveillance facility at
Bluegrass Army Depot, and an ammunition containerization complex at
Letterkenny Army Depot.
Simulator Facility Program.--One project is included in this year's
budget for the Wolverine/Grizzly Simulator Facility. This project will
enhance engineer soldier training at Fort Leonard Wood by using a group
of fully interactive, networked simulators and work stations to
replicate actual vehicles, weapons systems, and command and control
elements. This is the only simulator facility required for engineer
training. Our budget requests full authorization of $10,600,000 with
appropriations and authorization of appropriations of $1,600,000.
Advance appropriations for the balance of the project are requested for
fiscal year 2001.
quality of life projects
The quality of life of our soldiers, their families and civilians
has a significant impact on readiness. Therefore, our budget reflects
substantial funding levels for quality of life programs to support our
goal to get soldiers out of gang latrine type barracks and to provide
new or upgraded barracks for our requirement of 137,000 single
soldiers. Additionally, we are requesting other quality of life
facilities that will improve not only the life style of our soldiers
but also the readiness of the Army. We are requesting an authorization
of $454,550,000, with appropriations and authorization of
appropriations of $85,423,000 for quality of life projects this year.
Advance appropriations for the balance of the projects are requested
for fiscal year 2001.
This substantial effort, as well as increased out-year funding,
accelerates our barracks program by building new or renovating all
barracks worldwide by 2008, rather than 2012 as previously planned.
Whole Barracks Renewal Initiative.--Modernization of barracks
continues to be the Army's number one facilities priority for military
construction. It provides our single soldiers with a quality living
environment that is comparable to living off the installation, or that
enjoyed by our married soldiers. Our new or renovated barracks include
increased personal privacy and larger rooms, closets, upgraded day
rooms, all new furnishings, adequate parking, and landscaping, in
addition to administrative offices, which are separated from the
barracks.
In fiscal year 2000, we are planning seventeen projects. This
includes five projects in Europe and one project in Korea. Our budget
also expands and funds the Fort Campbell barracks complex that was
authorized in fiscal year 1999 and the Fort Stewart barracks complex
that was authorized in fiscal year 1998. We are requesting an
additional $7,000,000 authorization to complete the Fort Stewart
project, due to an increased price estimate of the total cost to build
the barracks complex. We are requesting full authorization of
$434,300,000, with appropriations and authorization of appropriations
of $81,273,000. Advance appropriations for the balance of the projects
are requested for fiscal year 2001.
After completion of the fiscal year 2000 program, 60 percent of our
soldiers requiring housing will be housed at the new standard. Our plan
is to invest an additional $5.2 billion (including host nation support)
to fix barracks worldwide to meet our goal of providing improved living
conditions to our single soldiers by fiscal year 2008. Between fiscal
year 1994 and fiscal year 1999, we have already invested $3.0 billion
in improving barracks and thus the quality of life of our single
soldiers.
Physical Fitness Training Centers
Physical fitness facilities have a positive impact on morale,
physical welfare, soldier fitness and recreation. The overall condition
of our existing fitness training facilities prompted us to include
three projects in fiscal year 2000: one each at Fort Lewis, Fort
Campbell and at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The request for full
authorization is $19,000,000, with appropriations and authorization of
appropriations of $3,770,000 for these projects. In addition, advance
appropriations for the balance of the projects are requested for fiscal
year 2001. This is the first phase of an effort to improve the
condition of our physical fitness training centers.
Chapel
Our fiscal year 2000 budget includes a small chapel at Fort McNair,
to serve the spiritual needs of the residents, employees, staff and
students. This project also must be designed with the unique
requirements of one of the Army's most important historic posts. Full
authorization of $1,250,000 is requested with appropriations and
authorization of appropriations for $380,000. Advance appropriations
for the balance of the project are requested for fiscal year 2001.
support programs
This category of construction projects provides vital support to
installations and helps improve their readiness capabilities. In our
budget, we have requested twenty-five projects with full authorization
request of $193,000,000, and appropriations and authorization of
appropriations request of $169,465,000. Advance appropriations for the
balance of the projects are requested for fiscal year 2001.
Our budget includes eight projects that will improve soldier
training. Three projects were authorized by Congress in fiscal year
1999: Phase 2 of the Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT)
training complex at Fort Bragg, Phase 2 of the soldier development
center at Fort Hood, and Phase 2 of the Fort Knox multi-purpose digital
training range. In addition, we have included a MOUT range and Sabre
heliport improvements at Fort Campbell, a multi-purpose training range
at Fort Stewart, an ammunition supply point facility for Yakima
Training Center and a rotational unit facility maintenance area at Fort
Irwin.
We are also revitalizing our infrastructure by budgeting eleven
projects that affect the efficient and safe operations of our
installations. These projects include a tank trail upgrade for erosion
mitigation at Fort Lewis, Yakima Training Center, a heat plant upgrade
at Fort Wainwright, a water treatment plant at Fort Leavenworth, a
water system upgrade and an electrical system upgrade in Korea. We also
included a military police station and a fire station at Fort Belvoir,
a fire station at McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, and an emergency
service center at both Fort Myer and Fort Jackson. In addition, we are
completing the power plant for Roi Namur on Kwajalein Atoll that was
fully authorized in fiscal year 1999.
Construction of the United States Army Disciplinary Barracks, begun
in fiscal year 1998, will be completed with this final phase, with an
appropriations and authorization of appropriations request of
$18,800,000. Phase 2 of the United States Military Academy Cadet
Physical Development Center, begun in fiscal year 1999, is also
included. We are requesting appropriations and authorization of
appropriations of $28,500,000 for this phase. The entire project was
authorized in fiscal year 1999.
The budget also includes projects at Westover Air Force Base and
Fort Meade for the construction of military entrance processing centers
that will permit us to vacate costly leased facilities and move onto a
military installation. The United States Army Space Command
Headquarters will be constructed at Peterson Air Force Base, with the
approval of this budget, which also permits us to vacate leased
facilities and to co-locate with other similar commands, thus providing
an additional economic advantage. Also included is a request for a
classified project.
ammunition demilitarization
The Ammunition Demilitarization (Chemical Demilitarization) Program
is designed to destroy the U.S. inventory of lethal chemical agents,
munitions, and related (non-stockpiled) materiel. It also provides for
emergency response capabilities, while avoiding future risks and costs
associated with the continued storage of chemical warfare materiel.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense devolved the Chemical
Demilitarization program to the Department of the Army in fiscal year
1999. Although Congress authorized and appropriated funding for the
fiscal year 1999 Chemical Demilitarization construction program to the
Department of Defense, the overall responsibility for the program
remained with the Army and we have included it in this year's Army
budget.
An appropriations and authorization of appropriations request for
$267,100,000 is included in the Army's fiscal year 2000 budget to
continue the Chemical Demilitarization projects previously authorized.
Full authorization of $206,000,000 is requested for two new projects at
Blue Grass Army Depot. The first Blue Grass project is a support
project which improves road access and security control. It also
provides utility linkage to the construction site, vehicle parking, and
a facility for contamination control. The second Blue Grass project is
the Ammunition Demilitarization Facility, which provides the structures
required to safely handle, process, and dispose of lethal chemical
agents and munitions. Table 1 summarizes our request:
TABLE I
[Fiscal Year 2000]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation Type Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD....... Ammun Demil Facility $66,600,000
Anniston Army Depot, AL........... Ammun Demil Facility 7,000,000
Blue Grass Army Depot, KY......... Ammun Demil Facility \1\ 11,800,000
Blue Grass Army Depot, KY......... Ammun Demil Support 11,000,000
Facility.
Newport Army Depot, IN............ Ammun Demil Facility 61,200,000
Pine Bluff Army Depot, AR......... Ammun Demil Facility 61,800,000
Pueblo Army Depot, CO............. Ammun Demil Facility 11,800,000
Umatilla Army Depot, OR........... Ammun Demil Facility 35,900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Authorization request of $195,800,000.
planning and design
The fiscal year 2000 MCA budget includes $60,705,000 for planning
and design. This request is based on the size of the two succeeding
fiscal years' military construction programs. The requested amount will
be used to complete design on fiscal years 2000 and 2001 and initiate
design of fiscal year 2002 projects. The size of the fiscal year 2000
request is, therefore, a function of the construction programs for
three fiscal years: 2000, 2001 and 2002.
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 United States Army Corps of
Engineers oversees the design and construction to ensure the facilities
meet our requirements and standards. Lack of oversight may result in an
increase in design errors and construction deficiencies that will
require United States dollars to rectify. Maintaining the funding level
for this mission results in a payback where one dollar of United States
funding gains $60 worth of Host Nation Construction. The fiscal year
2000 budget request for $21,300,000 will provide oversight for
approximately $1 billion of construction in Japan, $50 million in Korea
and $50 million in Europe. The budget includes $2,800,000, which is
dedicated to the oversight of facilities associated with the Government
of Japan (GOJ) funded initiative to consolidate and relocate United
States Forces on Okinawa.
Let me show you the analysis of our fiscal year 2000 MCA request.
budget request analysis
Summary
The fiscal year 2000 MCA budget includes a request for
appropriations of $656,003,000 and companion authorization of
appropriations request of $656,003,000 and advance appropriations of
$659,536,000.
Authorization Request.--The request for authorization is
$1,117,505,000. The authorization request is adjusted for those
projects previously authorized in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. These
projects include the third phase of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, the
second phase of the Railhead Facility and the Force XXI Soldier Support
Center at Fort Hood, phase two of the West Point Cadet Physical
Development Center, the Multi-purpose Digital Training Range at Fort
Knox, the Power Plant at Roi Namur, and the remainder of the Whole
Barracks Renewal Complex at Fort Campbell and Fort Stewart.
Additionally, it is modified to provide full authorization of
$195,800,000 for the Bluegrass Army Depot Ammunition Demilitarization
project. Only $11,800,000 in appropriations is required for the first
phase of this project.
The fiscal year 2000 request for authorization and appropriations
for fiscal year 2000, by investment focus, is shown in Table 2:
TABLE 2.--INVESTMENT FOCUS
[Appropriations Fiscal Year 2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Category Authorization Appopriations Appropriations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality of Life/Barracks........................................ $454,550,000 $85,423,000 13.0
Mission/Strategic Mobility...................................... 171,650,000 42,510,000 6.5
Support......................................................... 193,000,000 169,465,000 25.8
Planning & Design/Minor Construction............................ 91,505,000 91,505,000 14.0
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Army MILCON...................................... 910,705,000 388,903,000 59.3
Chemical Demilitarization....................................... 206,800,000 267,100,000 40.7
===============================================
TOTAL PROGRAM............................................. 1,117,505,000 656,003,000 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 shows the fiscal year 2000 distribution of the
appropriations request among the Army's major commands:
TABLE 3.--COMMAND SUMMARY
[Military Construction Army Fiscal Year 2000]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Percent of
Command ($000) Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Forces Command.......................... 103,463 15.8
Training & Doctrine Command............. 45,200 6.9
Army Materiel Command................... 272,490 41.5
Military District of Washington......... 6,110 0.9
Military Traffic Management Command..... 550 0.1
United States Military Academy.......... 28,500 4.3
Space & Missile Defense Command......... 3,700 0.6
United States Army, Pacific............. 18,700 2.9
Classified Project...................... 36,400 5.5
-------------------------------
SUB-TOTALS........................ 15,113 78.5
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Space & Missile Defense Command......... 35,400 5.4
Eighth, United States Army.............. 6,670 1.0
United States Army, Europe.............. 7,315 1.1
-------------------------------
SUB-TOTAL......................... 49,385 7.5
===============================
TOTAL MAJOR CONSTRUCTION.......... 564,498 86.1
WORLDWIDE
Planning and Design..................... 82,005 12.5
Minor Construction...................... 9,500 1.4
-------------------------------
SUB-TOTAL......................... 91,505 13.9
===============================
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTED.... 656,003 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advance appropriations.--With full authorization, a single contract
can be awarded. Advance appropriations allow the Army to construct all
phases of a project as a continuous project and minimizes any impact to
the contractor due to incremental funding. With advance appropriations,
the scope of the contract is not limited, but the work to be performed
by the contractor is limited by the amount available for obligation in
a given year. fiscal year 2001 advance appropriations of $659,536,000
are requested for the balance of the fiscal year 2000 construction
projects.
Now, I will explain our Army Family Housing request.
army family housing
No single quality of life measure is more important than adequate
housing for 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 United
States 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
DOD has set a goal to eliminate inadequate family housing by 2010.
Currently, 76 percent of Army's housing needs to be upgraded. Not
taking action would leave our program underfunded by about $400 million
per year, or $6 billion by 2010. Therefore, we intend to privatize Army
Family Housing (AFH) in the United States, provide adequate
revitalization resources to overseas locations and divest or demolish
unneeded houses.
In the United States, the Army plans to use the 1996 Military
Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) authorities in a program we are
calling the Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) to privatize AFH.
MHPI allows the Services to leverage housing dollars to obtain private
sector interest, expertise and capital to improve military housing. We
plan to privatize 85,000 units at 43 installations in the United States
by fiscal year 2005. Fort Carson, solicited under the Request for
Proposals (RFP) process, is the first to be privatized, with an award
expected in July 1999. Future projects will be solicited under the
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process, wherein the government
selects a private housing and community developer based on the firm's
qualifications and experience; jointly develops a Community Development
and Management Plan with that developer; and negotiates a development
agreement with the developer to implement that plan. The RFQ process is
faster, less costly to the developer, and provides more flexibility to
develop projects that meet the needs of all parties concerned. The
emphasis is on partnering with the private entity to develop
residential communities. The first RCI project to be executed under the
RFQ process will be Fort Hood, and is scheduled for award in February
2000. Forts Lewis, Stewart, Meade, and other installations will follow.
Minimal maintenance and repair (M&R) funds will be used to sustain
housing in a safe and habitable condition in the United States until
privatized. Thirty-eight million dollars has been transferred from the
Army Family Housing program in fiscal year 2000 to the Military Pay
Account to cover the cost of the first RCI projects. An additional $9
million of fiscal year 2000 AFH has been transferred to the OSD Family
Housing Improvement Fund (FHIF) for OMB ``scoring.'' The majority, but
not all, of AFH construction requirements in the Continental United
States (CONUS) will be accomplished through the privatization program.
Only in unique instances where privatization is not feasible is it
expected that traditional MILCON will be necessary for AFH in CONUS.
Because the Services do not own the houses or the land in foreign
areas, they are unable to ``leverage'' Military Construction funds or
attract new capital as they do in the United States. Moreover, the MHPI
authorities do not apply in foreign areas, so we will increase the
funds for the revitalization of our family housing in foreign areas to
meet the DOD goal by fiscal year 2010.
Our fiscal year 2000 request for appropriations and authorization
of appropriations is $1,112,083,000, while the authorization request is
$1,158,980,000. Additionally, we are requesting $43,991,000 for advance
appropriations. Our request includes a modest new construction program
to alleviate housing shortages in Korea; a revitalization program for
our aging foreign housing inventory, which is 92 percent inadequate;
and planning and design programs for future construction projects. Like
the Military Construction, Army program, we are requesting full
authorization for all new fiscal year 2000 projects, but only the
appropriations that can be spent in the first year. In most cases, this
amounts to approximately 15 percent of the project. For the Army, this
percentage is based on historical, first-year outlay rates and includes
an additional percentage for risk and flexibility. We are also
requesting fiscal year 2001 advance appropriations for the balance of
the funding requirement. Funding for the annual costs of operating,
maintaining and leasing family housing for fiscal year 2000 is
$1,098,080,000. Table 4 summarizes each of the categories of the Army
Family Housing program.
TABLE 4.--ARMY FAMILY HOUSING
[Fiscal Year 2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization Appropriations
Facility Category ---------------------------------------------------------
Dollars Percent Dollars Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Construction...................................... 24,000,000 2 4,400,000 <1
percent Post Acquisition Const........................ 32,600,000 3 5,303,000 1
Planning and Design................................... 4,300,000 <1 4,300,000 <1
Operations............................................ 185,620,000 16 185,620,000 17
Utilities............................................. 220,952,000 19 220,952,000 20
Maintenance........................................... 469,211,000 40 469,211,000 42
Leasing............................................... 222,294,000 19 222,294,000 <1
Debt.................................................. 3,000 <1 3,000 <1
---------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL........................................... 1,158,980,000 ......... 1,112,083,000 .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advance appropriations--With full authorization, a single contract
can be awarded. Advance appropriations allow the Army to construct all
phases of a project as a continuous project and minimize any impact to
the contractor due to incremental funding. With advance appropriations,
the contract is not limited, but the scope of the work to be performed
by the contractor is limited by the amount available for obligation in
a given year. fiscal year 2001 advance appropriations of $43,991,000
are requested for the balance of the fiscal year 2000 construction
projects.
family housing construction
The fiscal year 2000 request continues the Whole Neighborhood
Revitalization (WNR) initiative to revitalize the housing units, while
concurrently improving neighborhood amenities. This successful approach
addresses the entire living environment of the military, and we
appreciate the support that has been provided by the Congress in past
years. The projects recommended for this program, all in foreign areas,
are based on life-cycle economic analyses and will provide units that
meet adequacy standards. Foreign area funding requests, where RCI does
not apply, are being increased in order to bring all inadequate units
up to current adequacy standards by fiscal year 2010. We are requesting
full authorization of $60,900,000, with appropriations and
authorization of appropriations of $14,003,000. Advance appropriations
for the balance of the projects is requested for fiscal year 2001.
New Construction
The fiscal year 2000 new construction program provides a project to
construct 60 units at Camp Humphreys, Korea, where there is a
continuing requirement for new housing, including the supporting
infrastructure. The new construction project is requested to provide
family housing in Korea where adequate off-post family housing is not
available and no on-post family housing exists. These units are for
command sponsored personnel currently living in substandard, off-post
quarters and for those personnel who are unaccompanied due solely to a
lack of adequate family housing.
Post Acquisition Construction
The Post Acquisition Construction program is an integral part of
our housing revitalization program, and is limited to foreign areas. In
fiscal year 2000, we are requesting funds for improvements to 424 units
at three locations in Europe. Also included within the scope 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 2000 request. The requested
amount of $1,098,080,000 for fiscal year 2000 is almost 95 percent of
the family housing authorization request and nearly 99 percent of the
authorization of appropriations request. This budget provides for the
Army's annual expenditures for operations, municipal-type services,
furnishings, maintenance and repair, and utilities. Because of the
privatization program in the United States, maintenance and repair
funds for units scheduled to be privatized will be reduced to a level
that sustains the houses in a habitable condition, but defers major
repair projects until the RCI program is implemented at our
installations.
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. This request is the minimum necessary to
operate and maintain our family housing throughout the world.
leasing
The leasing program provides another way of adequately housing our
military families. We are requesting $222,294,000 in fiscal year 2000
to fund existing Section 2835 project requirements, temporary domestic
leases in the United States, and over 10,000 units overseas.
real property maintenance
In addition to MCA and AFH, 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 to be ready to
support current Army missions and any future deployments.
RPM consists of two major functional areas: Maintenance and Repair
of Real Property and Minor Construction. 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 $500,000 for the erection,
installation or assembly of a new facility, and for the addition,
expansion or alteration of an existing facility. It also funds projects
under $1 million which are intended solely to correct a life, health or
safety deficiency. This year we have requested funds for our RPM
program in the Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) account, as well
as a portion of the funds being requested in the Quality of Life
Enhancement, Defense (QOLE,D) account. When the OMA RPM funding of $828
million is combined with the QOLE,D funding of $626 million, the
resulting total funding will be $1,454,000 in fiscal year 2000.
Within the RPM program, there are two areas to highlight: our
Barracks Upgrade Program (BUP) and the Long Range Utilities Strategy.
At the completion of the fiscal year 1998 program, 48 percent of our
requirement for permanent party barracks will meet or approximate the
new DOD 1+1 barracks standard. Our Whole Barracks Renewal Program,
using Military Construction funding, will revitalize or replace 27
percent of the barracks. The remaining 25 percent of the barracks can
be modified to an approximate 1+1 standard using RPM resources. In
fiscal year 1999, Congress provided Army an additional $137 million in
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense (QOLE,D) funding for repair of
facilities key to improving the quality of life of our soldiers in
CONUS. We allocated these funds to bring more of our VOLAR-era barracks
inventory to the 1+1 standard within the Barracks Upgrade Program.
Starting in fiscal year 1999, and through the completion of the
program, the Army committed approximately $150 million per year to
continue the efforts to upgrade our single soldier's quality of life.
The Barracks Upgrade Program, when combined with the Military
Construction, Army 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 2008.
The second area to highlight within the RPM program is our Long
Range Utilities Strategy to provide reliable and efficient utility
services at our installations. As discussed earlier, privatization or
outsourcing of utilities is the first part of our strategy. We are
maximizing our efforts to partner with the local communities' utility
departments and private utility companies to provide utility services
that are more efficient and reliable. The second part of the strategy
is the utilities modernization program to help upgrade those utility
systems that are not viable candidates to be privatized, such as
central heating plants and distribution systems. We have programmed
$60,000,000 per year for utility modernization projects in fiscal years
1998 through 2002. Utility systems at unique or remote installations
are particularly reliant on these modernization projects. While we are
able to make progress in upgrading barracks and improving utility
services, the basic maintenance and repair of Army facilities is funded
at only 78 percent of the requirement, including those funds in the
Quality of Life, Defense, appropriation. At the current funding levels,
Army commanders will only be able to fix what breaks. The Installation
Status Report (ISR) shows Army facilities are rated C-3 (not fully
mission capable) due to years of under-funding. At the end of the last
rating period, 24 percent of the Army's facilities were ``red''--
unsatisfactory, 47 percent were ``amber''--marginal, and only 29
percent were ``green''--good.
homeowners assistance fund, defense
The Army is the executive agent for the Homeowners Assistance
Program. This program provides assistance to homeowners by reducing
their losses incident to the disposal of their homes when the military
installations at or near where they are serving or employed are ordered
to be closed or the scope of operations reduced. For fiscal year 2000,
there is no request for authorization of appropriations and
appropriations. Requirements for the program will be funded from prior
year carryover, revenue from sale of homes, and anticipated authority
to transfer monies from the Base Realignment and Closure Account.
Assistance will be provided to personnel at approximately 25
installations that are impacted with either a base closure or a
realignment of personnel, resulting in adverse economic effects on
local communities.
summary
Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 2000 budget marks a change from our
normal budget. It is a balanced program that permits us to execute our
construction programs; provides for the military construction required
to improve our readiness posture; and provides for family housing
leasing, operation and maintenance of the non-privatized inventory, and
privatization of approximately 14,100 owned units through fiscal year
2000. This request is part of the total Army budget request that is
strategically balanced to support both the readiness of the force and
the quality of life of our personnel. Our long-term strategy can only
be accomplished through balanced funding, divestiture of excess
capacity and improvements in management. We will continue to
streamline, consolidate and establish community partnerships that
generate resources for infrastructure improvements and continuance of
services.
The fiscal year 2000 request is for appropriations is
$1,768,086,000 and authorization of $2,276,485,000 for Military
Construction, Army and Army Family Housing. Further, the program allows
us to rely on the RCI program for the U.S. and redistribute scarce
resources to Europe and Korea to meet the departmental guidance to
eliminate inadequate family housing Army-wide by fiscal year 2010.
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 2000.
The program presented requests fiscal year 2000 appropriation of
$16,045,000 for military construction, Army National Guard. The
companion request for authorization is $57,402,000. Also requested is
an advance appropriation of $41,357,000 in fiscal year 2001.
The Army National Guard is America's community based, dual use
reserve force. They are missioned across the spectrum of contingencies,
and structured and resourced to accomplish State and Federal missions
when called. Army National Guardsmen are trained citizen-soldiers
committed to preserving the timeless traditions and values of service
to our Nation and communities, and, by statute, an integral part of the
first line defense of the United States. The National Guard is balanced
and ready. It is manned with over 361,000 quality soldiers in over
2,700 communities nationwide.
Greater reliance has been placed on this community based component
of America's Army. We are fully engaged in joint operational support,
host nation support, 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 provided close to
400,000 emergency response State missions and provided over one million
Federal man-days in support of global missions.
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
prepare the force for deployment. 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 do this, we intend to design, implement, operate
and maintain our facilities using private sector business practices,
21st century technologies, and commercial off-the-shelf facilities
software. Some examples that demonstrate this comprehensive program
are:
Education
An extensive real property management and real estate training
program for our facilities' managers continues to progress. Energy
training at the manager and executive level has been a beneficial
addition to the program.
Master Planning
A new State-wide development planning initiative was adopted by an
additional twelve States in fiscal year 1999, bringing the total to
thirty. Master Planning establishes the foundation for the management
and development of installations; provides the framework for analyzing
and justifying maintenance and repair resource allocations; helps
justify all peacetime and mobilization construction and development
activities; forms an important management tool to ensure the efficient
assignment, utilization, and disposal of real property assets; and
provides a decision-making tool to identify requirements and
alternatives for resolving real property deficiencies and excesses.
This system will provide the user with a spatial decision support
system which uses geographic information and computer automated design
technology. An additional twelve States are planned to be on-line each
year until 2001 when all fifty-four States and Territories will have
completed their Development Plans.
Energy Management
State-of-the-art energy efficient facilities are being constructed.
We are also upgrading existing facilities to current energy efficient
standards by funding energy projects from current operating funds,
using Energy Savings Performance contracts, developing military
construction 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 State energy managers are empowered to
execute an aggressive energy management program.
Data Analysis
In fiscal year 1999, we continued to refine the computerized
systems that allowed cost analysis of budget projections. The Army
National Guard installations program focuses on the future, investing
to provide efficiencies and not just to repair past mistakes. An
example is the Infrastructure Requirements Plan that has allowed the
Army National Guard to better prioritize its future construction
requirements.
Building Management System
We are currently in the implementation phase of the Smart Building
Demonstration Project. This undertaking links several independent
Direct Digital Controls for the operation of heating, ventilating, and
air conditioning systems within a facility.
Demand Lighting Technologies
The Demand Lighting Technologies (DeLiTe) system consists of
intrusion detection sensors, working in conjunction with exterior
lighting, CCTV and existing alarm systems. The system was developed to
enhance security, reduce security guards and decrease energy costs. At
this time, we have facilities in Ohio and Maryland that are
operational.
Military Construction, Army National Guard (MCNG)
Within our military construction request, we focus on five
investment areas: training site modernization, 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 2000, there are five mission facility projects. The
amount of $11,145,000 will be used to begin their construction.
Essential mission facilities include several initiatives such as
maintenance support shops, a readiness center and a training site
complex.
Training Site Modernization
Fiscal Year 2000 continues the slow process of adapting existing
State operated training sites to training strategies for the 21st
century. We have included the Marseilles Training Complex, at
Marseilles, Illinois, to our training site modernization program.
Current training is being conducted in field tents that provide limited
temporary supply, administrative, housing and hygiene facilities. This
training complex will greatly enhance readiness, as well as quality of
life for the soldier.
Maintenance Support Shops
In fiscal year 2000, we have included three replacement projects.
We will replace a Maneuver Area Training Equipment Site at Yakima,
Washington; a Maneuver Area Training Equipment Site/Combined Support
Maintenance Shop at Anchorage, Alaska; and one Organizational
Maintenance Shop at Charlotte, North Carolina. These facilities are
over two decades old and cannot support the mission of maintaining the
larger and more sophisticated vehicles and equipment. The construction
of these facilities will greatly enhance the readiness posture of
equipment in the State, increase crew proficiency, and will provide a
safe working environment for our soldiers.
Readiness Centers
A critical focal point for quality of life is the soldiers'
Readiness Center, of which there are about 3,200 nationwide. 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 can meet for community events and find refuge in times of need.
Therefore, in fiscal year 2000, we have included in our budget request
a readiness center at Charlotte, North Carolina. This project will
permit the community to demolish a facility built in 1956, and allow
for an expansion to the local airport. The community, in return, has
plans to provide the site for construction of this readiness center.
budget request analysis
This MCNG budget request includes a request for appropriation of
$16,045,000, an authorization of appropriation of $16,045,000, and
authorization of $57,402,000 in fiscal year 2000.
Table 5 shows the Fiscal Year 2000 request, by investment focus.
TABLE 5.--INVESTMENT FOCUS APPROPRIATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Category Authorizations Appropriations Appropriations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Support Shops....................................... $34,463,000 $7,316,000 45.6
Readiness Center................................................ 7,087,000 1,504,000 9.4
Training Site Facilities........................................ 10,952,000 2,325,000 14.5
Minor Construction.............................................. 771,000 771,000 4.8
Planning and Design............................................. 4,129,000 4,129,000 25.7
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 57,402,000 16,045,000 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 shows the fiscal year 2000 distribution of the
appropriations request among the fifty-four States and Territories:
TABLE 6.--FUNDED PROGRAM
[Fiscal Year 2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Percent of
Location Project Title Request Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte, NC.................................. Readiness Center.................. $1,504,000 9.4
Marswilles, IL................................. Tng Site, Battalion Complex....... 2,325,000 14.5
Anchorage, AK.................................. Combined Support Maintenance Shop/ 2,940,000 18.3
Manvr Area Tng Equip Site.
Yakima, WA..................................... Maneuver Area Trng Equip Site..... 3,464,000 21.6
Charlotte, NC.................................. Operational Maintenance Shop...... 912,000 5.7
Various........................................ Planning and Design............... 4,129,000 25.7
Various........................................ Minor Construction................ 771,000 4.8
Total Appropriations Requested........... .................................. 16,045,000 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
real property maintenance
The States will continue to prudently manage their existing
facilities, despite the challenges of age and shrinking real property
support funding. 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 is
almost $19 billion. Their average age is over thirty-four 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 and Territories 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 and Territories must
contribute at least 25 percent of operations and repair costs.
The States and Territories 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 Facilities Management
Offices are making a herculean effort to operate and maintain all
National Guard facilities.
summary
The fiscal year 2000 request is for appropriation of $16,045,000
and an authorization of $57,402,000 for military construction.
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. As we
look forward to another successful year in Army National Guard Military
Construction, we must thank you for your continual support of our
program.
part iii--military construction, army reserve
It is now my privilege to present the Army Reserve's military
construction budget request for fiscal year 2000. 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.
Like all of America's Army Reserve programs, the military construction
will focus Resources to Readiness.
The program presented requests fiscal year 2000 appropriations of
$23,120,000 and advance appropriations of $54,506,000. The companion
request for authorizations in fiscal year 2000 is $81,215,000.
The Army Reserve, which is on duty in 76 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 Army Reserve
units and personnel who comprise 65 percent of the Reserve Component
forces and 71 percent of the Army Reserve Component Forces serving in
Operation Joint Forge. 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. This includes an expanding role in commanding and
controlling Army installations and providing regional base operations
support. Those missions include the provision of trained and ready
combat support /combat service support units to rapidly mobilize and
deploy; providing trained and ready individual soldiers to augment the
Army; and projecting the Army anytime, anyplace to achieve victory.
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 provides a
military linkage in 1,315 communities throughout America, its
territories, and over-seas locations. Those facilities have an average
age of about 37 years. The six Army Reserve operated installations have
an average age of facilities of about 48 years. The Army Reserve
military construction strategy relies on its demonstrated capability to
convert the precious resources authorized and appropriated by Congress
into quality facilities that support the readiness of soldiers and
units. Since 1981, the Army Reserve has executed more than 300 military
construction projects that represent a $1.3 billion investment by the
Nation.
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 focused on
readiness. The essence of our program is straightforward: provide
essential facilities to improve readiness and quality of life, preserve
and enhance the Army's image across America, and conserve and protect
the facilities resources for which we are responsible. Our priorities
are: provide critical mission needs of Force Support Package units;
address the worst cases of facilities deterioration and overcrowding;
pursue modernization of the total facilities inventory; and carefully
manage Reserve operated installations. Our strategy for managing the
Army Reserve infrastructure in a resource constrained environment rests
on six fundamentals: eliminate leases when economical; 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.
Significant benefits have been realized from BRAC. The Army Reserve
acquired facilities from all Services, as well as the Active Army,
which offset military construction requirements. The facilities
acquired through BRAC provided a military construction cost avoidance
of $123.3 million. Other facilities acquired through the BRAC process
permitted the Army Reserve to relocate units from leased property to
quality, Government-owned centers. That effort allowed the Army Reserve
to reduce its lease costs by $6.07 million.
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. The 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 and
installations is approximately $10.6 billion. The budget request for
fiscal year 2000 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. Our military construction program
for both fiscal years 1999 and 2000 includes one project at Fort Dix,
New Jersey, one of the Army's fifteen power projection platforms. That
project directly supports training and readiness of the force and
environmental stewardship. 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 fiscal year 2000 Military Construction, Army Reserve (MCAR)
budget includes a request for appropriations and authorization of
appropriations of $23,120,000 and advance appropriations of
$54,506,000. This budget request for fiscal year 2000 provides
essential funds for our highest priority requirements, while 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 supports that readiness. The MCAR
appropriation includes three categories of funding: Major Construction,
Minor Construction, and Planning and Design.
Major Construction.--Our fiscal year 2000 requests funding for the
construction of three new Army Reserve centers in Georgia, Guam and
Puerto Rico to accomplish essential facility replacements; a Regional
Maintenance Training facility at Fort Hood, Texas; a Tactical Vehicle
Wash Facility at Fort Dix, New Jersey, that supports training and
environ-mental requirements; revitalization of existing facilities in
New York; and land acquisition to support a future joint services
project in Florida.
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. The 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, unforeseen mission requirements. The fiscal year
2000 budget includes $1,416,000 for Unspecified Minor Construction.
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 $8.5 million for fiscal year 2000.
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.
The fiscal year 2000 request is for appropriations of $23,120,000
and authorization of $81,215,000 for Military Construction, Army
Reserve. 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)
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. This budget represents the Army's final two
year budget required to implement the first four rounds of BRAC. In
fiscal year 1999, the Army is saving $839 million and will save $953
million annually upon completing these first four rounds of BRAC.
Although these savings are substantial, we need to achieve even more,
and bring our infrastructure assets in line with projected needs. We
must reduce the total cost required to support our facilities and
manage and maintain our real property inventory. BRAC has significant
investment costs, but the results bring to the Army modern and
efficient facilities at the remaining installations. The resulting
savings are critical to modernization, sustainment, infrastructure and
quality of life improvements. 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 as a
result of the first four rounds of BRAC. We are now in the final three
years 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 by local communities and
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 2000, we remain focused 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 2000 budget is important because it contains the
resources needed to fully fund the final six major construction
actions. These projects are scheduled for award early in fiscal year
2000, and are required to complete the BRAC 95 actions. This budget
also supports unit movements that will allow us to complete the closure
and realignments as scheduled. Additionally, the Army remains committed
to environmental cleanup of BRAC properties. This budget includes the
resources required to support projected reuse in the near term and to
continue with current projects to protect human health and the
environment. The Army will employ full funding through advance
appropriations for contracts begun during fiscal year 2000. This will
provide the mechanism to stretch the fiscal year 2000 funds and execute
the fiscal year 2001 program early in the fiscal year. Therefore, we
request that Congress approve appropriations and authorization of
appropriations of of $155,400,000 in fiscal year 2000 and approve
advance appropriations of $196,091,000 for fiscal year 2001.
The Army is accelerating all BRAC actions to obtain savings and
return assets to the private sector as quickly as available resources
will allow. In fiscal year 1998, we closed Fort Ritchie, Maryland 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. In fiscal year
1999, we are on schedule to complete the movement of the military
police and chemical schools to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and close
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 three that are scheduled for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
The President's Five Part Community Reinvestment Program, announced
on 2 July 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 fiscal year 1998, the Army conveyed
properties at Detroit Arsenal and the Materials Technology Lab in
Watertown, Massachusetts, and leased property at Letterkenny Army
Depot. These actions helped local communities create new private sector
jobs that lessened the impact of the base closure actions.
base realignment and closure--overseas
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.
Reductions in infrastructure roughly parallel troop reductions of 70
percent. In Korea, the number of installations is dropping from 104 to
83, or 20 percent.
On 18 September 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 14 January 1993, DOD announced it
will withdraw all United States military forces from the Republic of
Panama and transfer all facilities by 31 December, 1999. Of the 13
sites in Panama announced for closure, twelve have been returned. Table
7 shows the total number of overseas sites announced for closure or
partial closure is 667:
Table 7.--Total overseas sites announced for closure or partial closure
Location Installations
Germany........................................................... 575
Korea............................................................. 30
France............................................................ 21
Panama............................................................ 13
Netherlands....................................................... 6
Turkey............................................................ 6
United Kingdom.................................................... 5
Greece............................................................ 4
Italy............................................................. 4
Belgium........................................................... 3
______
Total......................................................... 667
Additional announcements will occur until the base structure
matches the force identified to meet United States commitments. At this
time, we do not see the need for many more overseas closures.
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 United
States--Forts Hood, Bragg, Benning, Stewart, Leonard Wood, Lewis,
Bliss, Carson, Gordon, Meade, Campbell and Redstone Arsenal.
Unquestionably, these reductions are substantial and have produced
savings to sustain readiness.
The process for closing overseas bases 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 public. The Army ends
operations by vacating the entire installation and returning it to the
host nation. If we only reduce operations, we retain a portion of the
facilities.
base realignment and closure program status
The Army has completed all realignment and closure actions from the
BRAC 88 and BRAC 91 rounds. The work of property disposal and
environmental remediation at eighteen installations will continue for
several years. The Army continues to work with local communities to
make properties available for economic redevelopment. Introduction of
economic development conveyances and interim leasing have 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 1999.
The Army is in the fourth year of the implementation of BRAC 95, after
which twenty-six of the twenty-nine closures and four of eighteen
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
completed interim leases 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 1998, the Army has spent $3,991,976,000
to implement the first four rounds of BRAC. The Army has realized a
total of $3,337,200,000 in savings during the implementation period
through the end of fiscal year 1998, and will realize an additional
$838,900,000 in annual recurring savings in fiscal year 1999. Upon
implementation of all actions from the first four BRAC rounds, the Army
will achieve annual savings of $953,000,000 beginning in fiscal year
2002.
The Army has completed environmental actions at 1,032 of a total of
1,944 BRAC environmental cleanup sites through fiscal year 1998.
Environmental restoration efforts were complete at 68 BRAC
installations through fiscal year 1998, 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 which 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
2000 program as planned and budgeted. We request your support by
providing the necessary BRAC funding for fiscal year 2000.
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. We have been joined by Senator Craig, of
Idaho, a member of this committee, who has some pressing needs.
Did you want to offer a statement or ask some questions?
STATEMENT OF LARRY CRAIG
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
ask unanimous consent that my whole statement be a part of the
record.
I would only say that this year's military construction
plan calls for authorization and a partial, approximately 25
percent appropriation for certain areas. In my opinion, this
approach is penny wise and pound foolish. To stretch out an
entire year's worth of projects will likely cost more in the
long run and delay construction of essential projects and
installations. I think we are calling this full approach phase
funding.
Certainly, at Mountain Home Air Force in Idaho, it does not
make good sense for us, and I do not think it makes good sense
for anybody else.
I have talked with some of the contractors in Idaho, and I
will tell you that those who have done the quality work we have
seen on the base are less likely to bid these kinds of
contracts, if we deal with that kind of thing. It is just an
unrealistic way of getting around some of our budget problems.
Let us face it, Mr. Chairman, fund the appropriate ones fully,
do it the right way instead of this less than creative way I
have seen proposed.
PREPARED STATEMENT
With that I will ask that my statement be made a part of
the record.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Craig.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Larry Craig
Military Construction is Important.--Military construction helps
our troops to better perform their missions, and it supports our
service members with the facilities that contribute to their quality of
life and that of their families. Unfortunately, I continue to be
concerned about funding for crucial construction projects. For fiscal
year 1998, the Administration requested funding levels below both the
fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 levels. And this year's budget
request, in my mind, is even more of a set back.
Problem of this Year's Proposed Phase Funding.--This year's
military construction plan calls for full authorization and a partial
(approximately 25 percent) appropriation. This approach is penny wise
and pound foolish. To Stretch out an entire year's worth of projects
will likely cost more in the long-run, and will delay construction of
essential projects at our installations. Let me also point out that
I've heard from contractors in Idaho, and they have made it clear they
don't want to bid for projects funded at 25 percent of the cost. Who
can blame them?
Impact on Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho.--The impact of phase
funding, if carried out, is very real. There are important projects in
the budget request that I believe deserve full authorization and
appropriation this year. For example:
--The $14.6 million Enhanced Training Range project will provide the
improvements needed by aircrews to fly against realistic
targets under battlefield conditions. Completing the range is a
multi-year project already. Allowing this project to slip
another year will adversely impact the readiness of the pilots.
--I also plan to request money for a couple of other projects, not
currently listed in this year's budget request, that I believe
belong there. One project is an Aircraft Parking Apron to
replace an inadequate ramp at Mountain Home. The current
situation is unacceptable. The ramp is constructed with only
four inches of asphalt. Aircraft can, and do sink into the
asphalt, particularly during the hot summer months. This ramp
needs to be constructed with 14 inches of reinforced concrete.
--Airmen's Dining Hall: Another example is the airmen's dining hall.
This facility, opened in 1978, is plagued with serious roof
leaks that disrupt compliance with sanitation requirements. The
mechanical and electrical systems are outdated, and it is
increasingly difficult to find parts for continued maintenance.
The hall doesn't meet Air Force or ACC standards.
--These difficulties are two good examples of how both mission
readiness and quality-of-life are impacted by military
construction. I will look for your assistance in the coming
months to help address these concerns.
--As a fiscal conservative, I take seriously the responsibility 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 are 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.
Senator Burns. I think there are a lot of us who have been
on this committee for quite a while still concerned about the
quality of life and we are very, very concerned about
retention.
I come out of the enlisted ranks, and I see we are not
building NCOs like we used to build, and maintaining and
keeping those NCOs and skilled positions, especially with an
Army that is quite different than the one that I knew back in
the fifties. So everything has changed. I was making $62 a
month and sleeping in barracks with 60 others, and I did not
see anything wrong with that.
Of course, if you cowboyed for a while and got used to
sleeping on the ground, well, the barracks looked pretty good
to me. I probably had more money then than I have now, but
nonetheless, we know the times have changed. I realize that we
have budgetary problems. We have had to shift some money. That
concerns me also, because we have lost some of the money out of
MILCON that has been put over to readiness, and also to fund
operations around the world to make sure that we fulfill those
commitments, and I can understand that.
But now we are down to the point where I do not know
whether this committee has any more money to give to that kind
of a situation, if we are going to attend to everything in the
infrastructure.
Now, we have moved better than 50 percent of our military
capabilities in the Reserves and Guard, and when we started to
do that, we found that infrastructure on Reserve and Guard was
lacking around the nation. A lot of states were lacking in
their infrastructure to house, to educate, and to train
soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. So we have shifted--I
have tried to shift a little more money to those areas if we
are going to maintain readiness, and in the Reserves and the
Guard I do not believe that--I think those young men and women
have to be trained and have to be--their edge has to be just
as--or should be equal to those who are on regular duty.
I am concerned about recruiting, to attract young people to
the military. I sort of fall into the category where we may
have to look at--we may have to look at some folks--at the
draft again in order to fill the ranks and to do some things.
We need to talk about this money and new programs to
furnish housing. I am a great supporter of the one plus one
standard, and now I am saying as far as the Army is concerned
there still is great value to barracks life, especially in
fighting units.
There is a cohesiveness, there is teamwork, and then
whenever you move up and you have your own room, well, in order
to make buck sergeant, well, there was some incentive to
advance in grade so that your living conditions probably could
be a little bit better. I think we have to have some incentives
and the right of passage, and, of course, that is the reason I
was a marine. There were lower qualifications back in the
fifties to be in the marine corps, and we survived it.
Mr. Secretary, why is the Army relying on housing
privatization exclusively to satisfy its housing requirements
in the United States rather than a combination of privatization
and military construction? It seems like we are totally going
towards privatization.
FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Apgar. Mr. Chairman, that is my responsibility, and
frankly, we have not communicated as well our true intent. The
objective was never to replace military construction, but
rather, frankly, to use the privatization authorities to their
fullest extent, and that is because of a financial reality
which struck me very hard coming into the government from the
private sector last summer, looking at a $6 billion backlog, on
a streamlined basis, knowing that it would take $600 million a
year for ten years in new funds that simply are not available,
and would divert funds from more critical readiness priorities.
I looked at those privatization authorities, and frankly,
the genius of those in the legislation that Congress passed in
1996 is that it allows leveraging of public dollars with
substantial private dollars. In fact, in the five pilot
projects that we have analyzed, the lowest amount of leverage
is eight to one. The highest is over forty to one.
By any measure that is a very significant and very
attractive potential capability in a situation where we cannot
depend on a flow of fresh funds to make a real dent, much less
solve our total revitalization needs. So we are driven by,
first, the huge backlog that we have; second, the very tight
budgetary constraints under which we are operating, as you well
know better than me, and third, the potential for a balanced
program, which does use these new authorities to the fullest
extent we can.
PILOT PROGRAMS
Now, at this point, we have only committed, as a matter of
policy, to a pilot program, which includes five installations,
one of which is already in the procurement process, I am sure
you know, Fort Carson, through the traditional RFP method; four
of which, Forts Hood, Lewis, Stewart, and Meade, we are
proposing for pilot testing. The reason we are proposing that
group is very important.
They represent a diversity of situations. Fort Hood, an
enormous post in a somewhat remote setting, with a limited
local private housing market; Forts Lewis and Meade, by
contrast, are in urban markets with significant private sector
outside. Fort Stewart is a more specialized post in a medium-
sized city area.
Between those four, we hope to not only test the full range
of authorities, not just one method, but all seven of the
tools, plus the conditions of adapting housing to a private
market standard in those areas, a very important innovation in
the legislation, in my view, and at the same time represent 95
percent-plus of all of the conditions in Continental United
States (CONUS) installations.
By using this pilot as a test bed, both for design and
execution, and not just for the financing tools, but for all of
the methods of working with the private sector, we then will be
in a better position, as will you, to judge how far
privatization can go.
I take full responsibility for promoting the fact from last
summer when I came on that we should, in my personal view, move
as aggressively as possible because of these constraints.
I recognized, however, as I said in my opening statement
that that view is not shared either by many in Congress or even
by some within the Defense Department, and because of that, I
certainly want to temper that to limit our focus to the pilot
programs over the next 18 to 24 months, and then be able to
come back with facts, results, comments from our development
partners, and as appropriate then, look ahead to a much more
balanced program.
Senator Burns. Just explain to me added costs. It has to
cost more to finally complete all of the projects that we have,
it is going to cost us more money, it sounds like to me. When
you spread that out over five years, the contractors take a
risk, there are financing costs, there are all these things
that we will have, and then the situation, what if we have
another round of BRAC? What is our obligation on the end of
that?
Mr. Apgar. If I may, sir, I think you may now be referring
to the incremental funding----
Senator Burns. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Apgar [continuing]. And I was commenting on
privatization, so let us shift to the incremental funding
situation.
Senator Burns. Basically, that is where we are going, the
privatization, we are going to use the incremental funding to
move into that privatization, am I not correct on that?
Mr. Apgar. No, sir, we are really separating now two
different strategies. Incremental funding is, as I believe you
said earlier, a one-time strategy driven by the Department of
Defense (DOD) policy to manage the fact that we have tight
budget constraints and have to be able to move as quickly as
possible on critical priority projects.
Housing privatization, we see as a completely separate
strategy specifically for housing and specifically with those
1996 tools. It is not incremental funding. It is long-term
recapitalization of the housing----
Senator Burns. I see.
INCREMENTAL FUNDING
Mr. Apgar. So to respond to your question on incremental
funding, we are providing through this one-time incremental
funding strategy critical projects in a situation which is not
ideal, but is manageable.
We expect that all the projects can be executed within the
fiscal year, but we are requesting that the reprogramming
baseline be raised to the highest amount of the project, and
that you approve advanced appropriations, because as you and
Senator Craig both commented on, the private sector does need
the assurance in order to price well, and if the assurance is
there through advanced appropriations, then our ability to
negotiate and manage good deals is still there.
Perhaps, General Hunter, you might wish to comment as the
execution agent.
General Hunter. Sir, good morning.
Senator Burns. Good morning.
General Hunter. I am the Director of Military Programs at
the Headquarters of the Corps of Engineers. As we have looked
at the strategy for executing an incrementally funded program,
we have looked at several things that I think are necessary,
too. Secretary Apgar mentioned full authorization.
I think we would also need advanced appropriation and
reprogramming authority. That is one set of tools that can help
us manage that program in building some assurances for the
contracting community. The other point I would like to make is,
if we do not have those tools then we are looking at a strategy
of moving a number of projects probably to the final quarter,
to sort of bridge the gap between fiscal years.
Senator Burns. In the privatization, General Hunter,
satisfy my curiosity on another round of BRAC. What are our
obligations to the holders of that housing?
General Hunter. For housing?
Senator Burns. Yes. If that base is closed up, what is our
obligation?
General Hunter. Sir, I defer that to the Secretary.
FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Apgar. First, in the way each privatization project is
structured, the legislation does enable us to provide
guarantees against closures, but the need for that and the
degree to which guarantees will be needed is situational, and
it has to be approached case by case.
For example, in a market like Fort Meade, Maryland, just up
the road here, in my professional view, not an official one at
this moment, if you will forgive me, there should not be a need
for extensive guarantees, if any, because the market itself is
so vibrant. The location of the installation is so central in a
growing market area that the developer should be able to build
and manage housing projects that can be absorbed in the local
market should that installation ever be closed, and that is a
critical factor. It is precisely why one cannot take a one-
size-fits-all approach in this, but we have to look at it case
by case, location by location.
The other factor is the enabling power to build to local
market standards. The more that we use those authorities built
into the privatization legislation, the less the developer
needs to move from the military construction housing
specification (MILSPEC), which might not be saleable or
reliable in the local market, to a much more marketable
commodity. Those two factors working together, frankly, will
limit, but we have the degree to which the government is liable
or exposed. We do have to recognize that in remote markets, for
example, there will have to be some form of quid pro quo to a
developer for a situation that he has no control over and does
not represent a real business risk. It is a government action.
Senator Burns. Talking about the standards of local
builders, look at my house. I live in the meanest pile of junk
you ever saw in your life. I have done more work on it since I
got it brand new that I should have bought some old junk and
fixed it up. The stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. I think
you answered most of this.
What leverage will we have to ensure the standards are met,
number one, and if disputes arise, how do we settle?
Mr. Apgar. First, in the development agreement, that is,
the long-term agreement with the development partner selected
in each location, performance standards will be established
both for construction and for operations. Even more important
than those purely contractual provisions, we intend to build in
incentives for performance, a technique which has long been
used in the private sector and in the development industry to
ensure that it is not a question of adversarial relationships.
We have a contract, we are there to enforce it, but rather,
aligning the goals of the development partner with ours for
performance.
Those techniques are well established. We are not inventing
them. We are adapting them to this situation. Our best
guarantee, Mr. Chairman, is really the selection of the
development partner and why we put so much attention into
reforming the procurement process.
As you well know, if you are in a business relationship
with a partner for the long term, you have a very different
type of problem-solving dispute resolution process than you do
if you are in a purely contractual adversarial process. The
Corps of Engineers, as executing agents, and all of us involved
believe strongly that by moving to a partnership mode of
operation and establishing good performance criteria, and
incentives to deliver them, that we should get a much better
long-term result.
BARRACKS MODERNIZATION
Senator Burns. Over in your barracks modernization, will
the shift of this housing standard that you are talking about,
privatization, improve the quality of life for soldiers? Will
the privatization affect what we do with our bachelor
personnel?
Mr. Apgar. No, sir. At present, the privatization program
only applies to family housing.
Senator Burns. I know, but the way we allocate our dollars,
how are we coming out on one-plus-one, are we--will that help
us maybe accelerate our one-plus-one renovation plans?
Mr. Apgar. Yes, it should, because--well, family housing
has its own budget structure, but we are placing a high
priority on completing the one-plus-one barracks modernization
program. As I mentioned earlier, we are more than half-way
through to our goal. We are pursuing it with maximum, both
budget support and leadership support. General Van Antwerp,
would you like to comment on that?
General Van Antwerp. Our plan right now is to buy out the
barracks by 2008, and then we are going to start a program in
2001 for the trainee barracks. They are separate, but the one-
plus-one barracks are for permanent party.
The timing of that has to do with allowing the swing space,
because you have to move those soldiers into other space. So
the program is on about as fast a track as--in fact, we pulled
it in from 2012 into 2008. It is about $600 million a year, and
I think the program is well on track. I do not think that it
will take any funds from Army family housing to continue at
this pace.
Senator Burns. In other words, you can maintain a schedule.
General Van Antwerp. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. I still think we ought to set out and visit
about that, and we will try to put together some kind of an
appointment where we can sit down and walk me through that when
we have a little more time and can probably have a better
exchange on just exactly what we are looking at then.
MILCON FUNDING--CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION
Last year, Congress realigned the MILCON funding for the
chemical demilitarization program from the Army to the Defense-
wide account. In this 2000 budget submission, the military
construction funding is back in the Army's budget. If the
program encounters problems or has cost overruns, does that put
the Army at risk?
Mr. Apgar. Although, Congress authorized and appropriated
the funding, the overall responsibility for the program
remained with the Army and we have included it in this years
army budget. Does anyone else have a further explanation?
General Van Antwerp. I think the responsibility for
construction remained in the Army. I guess there would be some
risk passed to the Army if things went wrong with the program.
I think that as the program has been executed in the past,
though, it is small risk. The Corps of Engineers has done an
excellent job with the execution of this program.
Senator Burns. Do you have $61 million in the budget for
this demilitarization construction this year, is that a correct
figure?
General Van Antwerp. I am showing the appropriation had
$267 million, is what my number reflected.
Senator Burns. Okay.
General Van Antwerp. I can get back with you on that.
Senator Burns. All right. We talked about, on your
contract, housing, and a lot of that has been privatized, and
off-base contractors are contracted to do that. Why are we not
doing that ourselves? General, I will ask you.
General Van Antwerp. Why are we contracting out a lot of
our O&M work?
Senator Burns. Yes.
COMPETITIVE SOURCING
General Van Antwerp. The privatization program and the
competitive sourcing program, this really falls into
competitive sourcing, where we would be the contract holders,
but we would get someone to do, in that case, operation and
maintenance work that is done readily on the outside.
It is done a lot by commercial activities. There are ample
people to bid on it. We would say in many cases it is a back
office function for the Army, it is not a Corps function. So we
have a program to compete these things.
If the government can do it more economically in-house,
then it stays in the government, and we put together what we
call a most efficient government organization. If a private
sector contractor can do it more efficiently, and a lot of
times if it is a bigger contract, if it is like for a whole
base, where they are able to reduce overheads and things, a lot
of times the private sector can do it more economically than we
can.
Senator Burns. Why can we not be teaching young men and
young women who come into the Army and have very few skills,
and when they leave they will have a skill?
General Van Antwerp. This program is essentially for things
that are not done with military labor. The military labor of
the part that we are competing is very, very small. In fact,
what we would like to do is get the uniformed members back into
the force and out of these commercial-type activities.
We are talking, our program is 73,000 positions to study
for competitive sourcing. Only about 6,000 of those spaces are
uniformed members, and the idea would be to take those
uniformed members, put them back in the force, and use the rest
of it by the civilian.
Senator Burns. You might teach one of them to be a
carpenter, so he can do something when he comes out. I am
sorry, I left off Van Antwerp.
General Van Antwerp. Antwerp puts me at the head of the
alphabet. I am usually last in line. [Laughter.]
Senator Burns. I will tell you that we have a very, very
solid neighborhood of Hollanders, in Bozeman, Montana, and I
will tell you a neat story.
One of them is an old friend of mine, his name is Van
Heisen, and he is in the sweet potato business, grows sweet
potatoes. They are very frugal, as you well know. They are
great people. He is 80 years old, and he has cancer, and he
does not have very long to live, so I went to visit him, and we
have known each other for a long time.
At the end of the visit he said, he told his wife to go get
the checkbook, and said, ``Write this boy a check, because he
is running for reelection,'' and I said, ``John, that is not
the purpose of this visit.'' He said, ``I know it, but,'' he
said, ``in 30 days I am not going to be here and she is pretty
close with her money, you might not get nothing.'' [Laughter.]
They are terrific people.
There will be some more questions. I am sure Senator Murray
will have some questions, Mr. Secretary. This privatization, we
are going to continue to visit with you.
I would like to set up a private appointment before we
finally make our decision on this, because we have not gotten
our full allocations, as you know, as of yet, so we do not know
exactly what our allocations are going to be, but I do want to
sit down, because I guess we are going into an area of which I
have the least knowledge, and when you have the least
knowledge, you have more fears, and I want to go over this with
you kind of around the table, and if takes an hour or so, why I
think I will either come to your place or you can come to my
place, it does not make any difference.
My concern right now is readiness, and our soldiers,
especially in the enlisted level, where we are having
tremendous problems of retention and retention of skilled
people, and we cannot continue to lose those people if we are
going to have a solid planning force. I have a lot of respect
for young men and women who choose to wear the uniform of the
United States of America, and I think we have an obligation to
them, and we also have an obligation to the taxpayers.
I think we are taking some risks here maybe that we would
not have to take or should not take. So I would want to visit
along those lines, if you would probably allow me, and I would
be happy to work with you in any way we can to make sure that
we are both heading in the same direction, and we can have an
understanding regarding this point.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I appreciate you coming this morning and answering these
questions for the record, and I look forward to our second
meeting.
General Van Antwerp. Thank you.
Mr. Apgar. Thank you very much.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Secretary Apgar
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
funding level
Question. Secretary Apgar, I am concerned about the Department's
plan to phase fund military construction (MILCON) in fiscal year 2000.
I recognize that there were tremendous fiscal pressures to realign
money. However, if this practice continues into the future, what would
be the long-term implications to your MILCON program?
Answer. Incremental or phase funding of military construction is a
one-time initiative to fund critical readiness requirements. There is
no intent to continue the practice in the future. Continuation of the
practice would reduce the Army's ability to program future construction
due to the commitment of future year funds to pay the balance on prior
years' incrementally funded work.
Also, while incremental funding is appropriate for large-scale
construction projects, such as hospitals and chemical demilitarization
facilities, it is not conducive to small projects. Small projects which
are incrementally funded generally require delayed award or notice to
proceed and may be subject to higher bids. For the Army National Guard,
projects would have to be subdivided into segments because State
statutes prohibit the award of contracts without all Federal dollars
being present. This would require the use of separate contracts on each
increment and would potentially cost more money.
Question. If we decide to pursue this strategy of advance
appropriations, will this slow down execution of the projects and
potentially increase their costs?
Answer. No. Advance appropriations, along with full authorization
and greater reprogramming flexibility, will allow the fiscal year 2000
program to be executed (awarded) within the initial fiscal year of
funding with little impact on project costs.
Question. What does the Army spend each year on Plant Replacement
Value per year on facility maintenance? At this rate, what is the
replacement cycle for Army infrastructure for each component?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the Army proposes to spend $1,748
million for facility maintenance ($828 million, Active; $78 million,
Guard; $116 million, Reserve; plus $726 million with Quality of Life
Enhancements, Defense (QOLE,D)). These totals include funding for
sustainment maintenance and about 20 percent for recapitalization
initiatives or $361 million. The grand total is approximately 77
percent of the required funding needed to maintain our facilities in
their current condition. The replacement cycle based on MILCON funding
for Army infrastructure in fiscal year 2000 is approximately 160 years.
residential communities initiative (rci)
Question. Did you look at other methods to close the housing gap
and privatize housing? What were they? Why did you select the RCI
process?
Answer. Yes, the Army has considered a wide range of alternatives
to address the severe, persistent funding shortfall and resulting
revitalization (construction and major maintenance and repair) backlog,
recently re-verified to be $6B. This shortfall is the backlog of work
needed on existing units to bring them up to current standards. This
$6B backlog does not include any costs to alleviate the family housing
deficit, estimated at more than 10,000 units. During the mid-1990s,
studies by several agencies [e.g., Marsh Quality of Life Task Force,
Army Science Board, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the General
Accounting Office (GAO), and others] all came to the same conclusion
that family housing could not be revitalized using traditional MILCON
but that the Department would need to privatize to leverage scarce
appropriated funds and assets (housing and land) to solve the military
housing problem.
In fiscal year 1994, the Army developed a strategy consisting of 1)
the protection of Army Family Housing (AFH) appropriated fund budgets
to stop further deterioration until a long-term solution could be
developed; 2) the demolition of unneeded, uneconomically-repairable
housing; and 3) the transition of housing management to a business type
operation or privatization. The Army's success in implementing this
strategy has been mixed. Due to budgetary constraints, we were not able
to significantly reduce further deterioration of the inventory because
of the large backlog of work. However, the Army has succeeded in
continuing to demolish unneeded AFH units and has demolished over 4,500
such units since fiscal year 1993. As a step toward fulfilling the
long-term portion of its housing strategy, the Army implemented the
Business Occupancy Program (BOP) in 1996 to house more soldiers on
installations by funding housing offices according to the number of AFH
occupied by military families, not total inventory. Further, the Army
proposed for consideration within the Executive Branch legislation for
an Army Housing Corporation (in 1994) to operate AFH as a business and
supported the Department's Military Housing Corporation initiative in
1996. Ultimately, however, these initiatives were not pursued for
implementation. In short, the Army considered many other approaches
before settling on an RCI-style privatization as the solution to the
AFH problems in the U.S. We should stress, however, that RCI is itself
a pilot program designed to experiment with the authorities available
to the Army under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative
legislation.
The focus of the Army's efforts will be on utilizing these
authorities to increase or leverage the rate of return on government
resources dedicated to support the Army's housing needs. We do not,
however, believe that privatization will prove appropriate or feasible
at all installations. Consequently, even if after consultation with
Congress, the Army proceeds with privatization beyond the RCI pilot we
would expect to rely on traditional military construction methods to
address some portion of our soldiers' and their families' housing
needs.
Question. With respect to family housing privatization, I am
concerned about soldiers and their families paying more to live in one
of these projects than housing provided through traditional military
construction. What assurances can you give me that they will not have
out of pocket expenses?
Answer. The Army Leadership has continued to stress that any
privatization project for family housing on an installation will be
``invisible'' to the soldiers and family members in that out-of-pocket
costs for all soldiers living in on-post housing (whether privatized or
government owned) will be the same. Under the current policy, there are
no out-of-pocket costs associated with on-post housing. Consequently,
soldiers will pay no more than their Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
for the rent and utilities of the RCI housing that is privatized on an
Army installation.
Question. What is the average lease period with the developers for
these types of Army privatization deals?
Answer. Fort Carson is the Army's first project and is currently in
the evaluation phase. Fort Carson was solicited as a Request for
Proposal and the contract term is a 50-year contract with an additional
25-year option. Under the Request for Qualifications procurement
process, the term of the lease will be determined during the
development of the Community Development and Management Plan.
Question. How will installations with family housing privatization
ventures be treated in future rounds of BRAC?
Answer. All installations will be treated the same. That is, under
the recently proposed Base Realignment and Closure legislation, all
installations would be treated equally and evaluated against identical
criteria, regardless of whether housing on the installation is
government owned or privatized. The new legislation, like its
predecessor which authorized BRAC rounds in 1991, 1993, and 1995, would
require that each of the Military Departments evaluate installations on
the basis of a force structure plan and a set of approved selection
criteria, that would be published and reviewed by Congress. In
addition, every recommendation under the new BRAC round, along with
supporting data, would be certified and reviewed by the independent
Base Realignment and Closure Commission, the General Accounting Office,
and the Congress.
Question. I have heard that the Army continued letting contracts
for consultants even after the Congress asked the program be put on
hold until you received their clearance. Have you let any contracts?
What are they for and for how much money? How was it determined who
would be invited to bid on the contracts? Who received the contracts
and why?
Answer. Yes. The contracting process was already in process when
the Army's privatization initiative was put on hold. To have canceled
the solicitation and re-competed would have caused substantial delays
in executing the pilot privatization projects.
The solicitation was announced publicly in the Commerce Business
Daily. The Government awarded a single Performance Based Compensation,
Firm-Fixed Price-Labor Hour, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity
type contract from this solicitation. The contract was awarded to
LaSalle Partners, Inc. (now Jones Lang LaSalle) and was awarded
competitively after full and open competition. The contract is for
services to provide professional administrative and management support
services. The guaranteed minimum award per year during the base year
and one option period is $100,000. Maximum award over the total two-
year period is approximately $7.5 million. The Government expects to
make minimal contractual payments during the time the program is on
hold.
barracks modernization
Question. Secretary Apgar, explain to me the Army's policy
regarding barracks modernization.
Answer. The Army builds or renovates barracks to the one-plus-one
standard for permanent party single soldiers in grades E-1 through E-6.
The current requirement is for 137,000 soldiers. Included in the
program is the removal of company and higher administrative facilities
and dining facilities from the barracks buildings. To achieve the
fiscal year 2008 buyout, we use a combination of MCA, O&M, host nation
support, and residual value funding. Decisions on construction versus
renovation are based on detailed building assessments and economic
analyses.
Question. I understand that the Army will implement the 1+1
standard in fiscal year 2008. How were the decisions made on
prioritizing which bases came first? Would you provide the subcommittee
the Army's barracks master plan for the record?
Answer. Prioritization is based on requirements, age and type of
existing facilities and the installation's ability to execute projects.
Further, emphasis is placed on minimizing the impact of construction
and renovation on providing accommodations for single soldiers while
still achieving the buyout goal. Location specific program data are in
the chart that follows. Program level planning detail for fiscal year
2006-2008, the last years of the program, is not yet available.
[Fiscal years 1996-2005]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Location Prjection Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996
AZ....................................... Ft Huachuca................. WholeBarracks Complex $16,000
Renewal.
CO....................................... Ft Carson................... WholeBarracks Renewal 20,000
Complex (Ph I).
DC....................................... Ft McNair................... WholeBarracks Complex 5,500
Renewal.
GA....................................... Ft Benning.................. WholeBarracks Complex 33,000
Renewal.
HI....................................... Schofield Bks............... WholeBarracks Complex 30,000
Renewal (Ph I).
KS....................................... Ft Riley.................... WholeBarracks Renewal (Ph I) 7,000
KY....................................... Ft Campbell................. WholeBarracks Complex 10,000
Renewal (Ph I).
MD....................................... Ft Dietrick................. Unaccompanied Enl Pers Hsg.. 17,500
NC....................................... Ft Bragg.................... WholeBarracks Complex 18,500
Renewal.
OK....................................... Ft Sill..................... 48-Person Barracks Complex.. 8,000
SC....................................... Ft Jackson.................. WholeBarracks Complex 32,000
Renewal.
TX....................................... Ft Hood..................... WholeBarracks Complex 17,500
Renewal.
TX....................................... Ft Bliss.................... WholeBarracks Complex 48,000
Renewal.
TX....................................... Ft Hood..................... WholeBarracks Complex 15,000
Renewal (Ph I).
TX....................................... Ft Bliss.................... Dining Facility............. 4,900
VA....................................... Ft Eustis................... WholeBarracks Complex 11,000
Renewal.
KR....................................... Cp Hovey.................... WholeBarracks Complex 7,300
Renewal.
KR....................................... Cp Stanley.................. WholeBarracks Complex 6,800
Renewal.
KR....................................... Cp Pelham................... WholeBarracks Complex 5,600
Renewal.
KR....................................... Cp Hovey.................... WholeBarracks Complex 6,200
Renewal.
KR....................................... Korea....................... Dining Facility............. 4,150
1997
CO....................................... Ft Carson................... WholeBarracks Complex 13,000
Renewal(Ph II).
GA....................................... Ft Benning.................. WholeBarracks Complex 44,000
Renewal.
HI....................................... Schofield Bks............... WholeBarracks Complex 10,600
Renewal.
KS....................................... Ft Riley.................... WholeBarracks Complex 26,000
Renewal.
KY....................................... Ft Campbell................. WholeBarracks Complex 35,000
Renewal(Ph II).
KY....................................... Ft Knox..................... WholeBarracks Complex 10,000
Renewal-Ph I.
MO....................................... Ft Leonard Wood............. Ft. McClellan relocation.... 58,000
TX....................................... Ft Hood..................... WholeBarracks Complex 35,000
Renewal (Ph II).
WA....................................... Ft Lewis.................... WholeBarracks Complex 49,000
Renewal.
GY....................................... Taylor Bks.................. Barracks Restoration........ 9,300
GY....................................... Spinelli, Bks............... Barracks.................... 8,100
KR....................................... Cp Red Cloud................ WholeBarracks Complex 14,000
Renewal.
KR....................................... Cp Casey.................... WholeBarracks Complex 16,000
Renewal.
1998
AZ....................................... Ft Huachuca................. WholeBarracks Complex 20,000
Renewal.
GA....................................... Ft Stewart (HAAF)........... WholeBarracks Complex 13,400
Renewal, Ph I.
GA....................................... Ft Gordon................... WholeBarracks Complex 22,000
Renewal.
HI....................................... Schofield Bks............... WholeBarracks Complex 44,000
Renewal.
KS....................................... Ft Riley.................... WholeBarracks Complex 18,500
Renewal.
KY....................................... Ft Campbell................. WholeBarracks Complex 37,000
Renewal.
KY....................................... Ft Knox..................... WholeBarracks Complex 22,000
Renewal--Ph II.
NC....................................... Ft Bragg.................... WholeBarracks Complex 9,800
Renewal.
OK....................................... Ft Sill..................... WholeBarracks Complex 8,000
Renewal.
TX....................................... Ft Sam Houston.............. WholeBarracks Complex 16,000
Renewal.
VA....................................... Ft Myer..................... WholeBarracks Renewal....... 8,200
WA....................................... Ft Lewis.................... WholeBarracks Complex 31,000
Renewal.
GY....................................... Tompkins Bks................ Barracks Renovation......... 7,600
GY....................................... Taylor Bks.................. Barracks Renovation......... 5,400
GY....................................... Katterbach.................. Barracks Renovation......... 19,000
GY....................................... Kaiserslautern.............. Whole Barracks Renewal...... 5,200
KR....................................... Cp Red Cloud................ WholeBarracks Renewal....... 22,000
KR....................................... Cp Stanley.................. WholeBarracks Renewal....... 6,400
KR....................................... Cp Castle................... WholeBarracks Renewal....... 7,700
KR....................................... Cp Humphreys................ WholeBarracks Renewal....... 29,000
KR....................................... Cp Casey.................... Dining Facility............. 5,100
1999
DAK...................................... Ft Wainwright............... WholeBarracks Renewal....... 16,000
GA....................................... Ft Benning.................. WholeBarracks Complex 28,600
Renewal.
HI....................................... Schofield Bks............... WholeBarracks Complex 47,500
Renewal.
KY....................................... Ft Campbell................. Whole Barracks Complex 41,000
Renewal.
NC....................................... Ft Bragg.................... Whole Barracks Complex 47,000
Renewal.
NC....................................... Ft Bragg.................... Whole Barracks Complex 10,600
Renewal.
OK....................................... Ft Sill..................... Whole Barracks Complex 20,500
Renewal.
TX....................................... Ft Sam Houston.............. Whole Barracks Complex 21,800
Renewal.
VA....................................... Ft Myer..................... Barracks Renovation......... 6,200
VA....................................... Ft Eustis................... Whole Barracks Complex 36,531
Renewal.
.......................................
GY....................................... Schweinfurt Modernize....... Barracks Building........... 18,000
KR....................................... Cp Stanley.................. Whole Barracks Renewal...... 5,800
KR....................................... Cp Casey.................... Whole Barracks Complex 13,400
Renewal.
KR....................................... Cp Castle................... Whole Barracks Renewal...... 18,226
KR....................................... Cp Humphreys................ Whole Barracks Renewal...... 8,500
KR....................................... Cp Casey.................... Whole Barracks Renewal...... 29,000
KR....................................... Cp Hovey.................... Whole Barracks Renewal...... 20,000
2000
AK....................................... Fort Richardson............. Whole Barracks Complex 14,600
Renewal.
GA....................................... Fort Benning................ Whole Barracks Renewal 47,000
Complex.
GA....................................... Fort Stewart................ Whole Barracks Complex 3,500
Renewal w/Dining.
HI....................................... Schofield Barracks.......... Whole Barracks Complex 95,000
Renewal.
KS....................................... Fort Leavenworth............ Whole Barracks Complex 26,000
Renewal.
KY....................................... Fort Campbell............... Whole Barracks Complex 4,800
Renewal, Ph II.
MD....................................... Fort Meade.................. Whole Barracks Complex 18,000
Renewal.
NC....................................... Fort Bragg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 74,000
Renewal.
PA....................................... Carlisle Barracks........... Whole Barracks Complex 5,000
Renewal.
TX....................................... Fort Hood................... Whole Barracks Complex 29,000
Renewal.
VA....................................... Fort Eustis................. Whole Barracks Complex 39,000
Renewal.
GY....................................... Ansbach..................... Whole Barracks Complex 21,000
Renewal.
GY....................................... Bamberg..................... Whole Barracks Complex 5,700
Renewal.
GY....................................... Bamberg..................... Whole Barracks Complex 9,300
Renewal.
GY....................................... Bamberg..................... Whole Barracks Complex 8,200
Renewal.
GY....................................... Mannheim.................... Whole Barracks Complex 4,500
Renewal.
KR....................................... Camp Casey.................. Whole Barracks Complex 31,000
Renewal.
2001
AK....................................... Fort Richardson............. Whole Barracks Complex 12,400
Renewal.
CA....................................... Fort Irwin.................. Whole Barracks Complex 25,900
Renewal.
GA....................................... Fort Benning................ Whole Barracks Renewal 39,900
Complex.
GA....................................... Fort Stewart................ Whole Barracks Renewal 39,000
Complex w/Dining.
HI....................................... Schofield Barracks.......... Whole Barracks Complex 80,800
Renewal.
HI....................................... Schofield Barracks.......... Whole Barracks Complex 35,900
Modernization.
KS....................................... Fort Riley.................. Whole Barracks Complex 25,900
Renewal.
KY....................................... Fort Campbell............... Whole Barracks Complex 27,200
Renewal.
KY....................................... Fort Campbell............... Whole Barracks Complex 45,900
Renewal, Ph III.
MD....................................... Fort Detrick................ Whole Barracks Complex 14,200
Renewal.
MD....................................... Fort Meade.................. Whole Barracks Complex 15,300
Renewal.
NC....................................... Fort Bragg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 57,392
Renewal.
NC....................................... Fort Bragg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 22,000
Renewal.
NC....................................... Fort Bragg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 59,800
Renewal.
NJ....................................... Fort Monmouth............... USMA Prep School Barracks... 11,800
PA....................................... Carlisle Barracks........... Whole Barracks Complex 4,250
Renewal.
VA....................................... Fort Eustis................. Whole Barracks Complex 33,200
Renewal.
GY....................................... Ansbach..................... Whole Barracks Complex 17,850
Renewal.
GY....................................... Bamberg..................... Whole Barracks Complex 7,900
Renewal.
GY....................................... Bamberg..................... Whole Barracks Complex 6,970
Renewal.
GY....................................... Bamberg..................... Whole Barracks Complex 4,840
Renewal.
GY....................................... Bamberg..................... Whole Barracks Complex 4,100
Renewal.
GY....................................... Bamberg..................... Whole Barracks Complex 9,300
Renewal.
GY....................................... Darmstadt................... Whole Barracks Complex 6,800
Renewal.
GY....................................... Darmstadt................... Whole Barracks Complex 7,000
Renewal.
GY....................................... Mannheim.................... Whole Barracks Complex 3,825
Renewal.
GY....................................... Mannheim.................... Whole Barracks Complex 5,400
Renewal.
KR....................................... Camp Casey.................. Whole Barracks Complex 26,350
Renewal.
KR....................................... Camp Humphreys.............. Whole Barracks Complex 14,400
Renewal.
KR....................................... Camp Page................... Whole Barracks Complex 20,900
Renewal.
KW....................................... Kwajalein................... Unaccompanied Personnel 19,900
Housing.
2002
WI....................................... Schofield Barracks.......... Whole Barracks Complex 49,000
Renewal.
KS....................................... Fort Riley.................. Whole Barracks Complex 40,000
Renewal.
NC....................................... Fort Bragg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 39,000
Renewal.
NC....................................... Fort Bragg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 40,000
Renewal.
VA....................................... Fort Myer................... Whole Barracks Complex 4,500
Renewal.
WA....................................... Fort Lewis.................. Whole Barracks Complex 49,000
Renewal.
WA....................................... Fort Lewis.................. Whole Barracks Complex 49,000
Renewal.
GY....................................... Bamberg..................... Whole Barracks Complex 9,500
Renewal.
GY....................................... Darmstadt................... Whole Barracks Complex 6,800
Renewal.
GY....................................... Darmstadt................... Whole Barracks Complex 6,900
Renewal.
GY....................................... Hanau....................... Whole Barracks Complex 7,300
Renewal.
GY....................................... Heidelberg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 7,200
Renewal.
KR....................................... Camp Carroll................ Whole Barracks Complex 9,000
Renewal.
KR....................................... K-16 Airfield............... Whole Barracks Complex 25,000
Renewal.
2003
AK....................................... Fort Richardson............. Whole Barracks Complex 18,500
Renewal.
CO....................................... Fort Carson................. Whole Barracks Complex 47,000
Renewal.
GA....................................... Fort Stewart (HAAF)......... Whole Barracks Complex 20,000
Renewal.
HI....................................... Schofield Barracks.......... Whole Barracks Complex 49,000
Renewal.
HI....................................... Schofield Barracks.......... Whole Barracks Complex 29,000
Renewal.
KS....................................... Fort Riley.................. Whole Barracks Complex 35,000
Renewal.
KY....................................... Fort Campbell............... Whole Barracks Complex 24,000
Renewal.
NC....................................... Fort Bragg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 41,000
Renewal.
NC....................................... Fort Bragg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 32,000
Renewal.
NC....................................... Fort Bragg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 12,000
Renewal.
TX....................................... Fort Hood................... Whole Barracks Complex 41,000
Renewal.
GY....................................... Baumholder.................. Vehicle Maintenance Facility 11,600
GY....................................... Darmstadt................... Whole Barracks Complex 7,200
Renewal.
GY....................................... Hanau....................... Whole Barracks Complex 7,400
Renewal.
GY....................................... Hanau....................... Whole Barracks Complex 7,500
Renewal.
GY....................................... Heidelberg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 6,800
Renewal.
GY....................................... Mannheim.................... Whole Barracks Complex 4,250
Renewal.
GY....................................... Mannheim.................... Whole Barracks Complex 5,300
Renewal.
GY....................................... Mannheim.................... Whole Barracks Complex 7,280
Renewal.
KR....................................... Camp Bonifas................ Whole Barracks Complex 9,000
Renewal.
KR....................................... Camp Coiner................. Whole Barracks Complex 20,000
Renewal.
2004
AK....................................... Fort Wainwright............. Whole Barracks Complex 13,000
Renewal.
GA....................................... Fort Benning................ Whole Barracks Complex 14,000
Renewal.
HI....................................... Schofield Barracks.......... Whole Barracks Complex 49,500
Renewal.
HI....................................... Schofield Barracks.......... Whole Barracks Complex 34,000
Renewal.
HI....................................... Schofield Barracks.......... Whole Barracks Complex 16,600
Renewal.
KS....................................... Fort Riley.................. Whole Barracks Complex 34,500
renewal.
KY....................................... Fort Campbell............... Whole Barracks Complex 10,600
Renewal.
MD....................................... Fort Meade.................. Whole Barracks Complex 18,500
Renewal.
NC....................................... Fort Bragg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 57,000
Renewal.
NC....................................... Fort Bragg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 12,000
Renewal, USASOC.
NC....................................... Fort Bragg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 16,000
Renewal.
VA....................................... Fort Story.................. Whole Barracks Complex 15,000
Renewal.
WA....................................... Fort Lewis.................. Whole Barracks Complex 49,000
Renewal.
GY....................................... Bamberg..................... Whole Barracks Complex 6,000
Renewal.
GY....................................... Heidelberg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 4,600
Renewal.
GY....................................... Heidelberg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 7,100
Renewal.
GY....................................... Kaiserslautern.............. Whole Barracks Complex 8,900
Renewal.
GY....................................... Mannheim.................... Whole Barracks Complex 4,200
Renewal.
GY....................................... Mannheim.................... Whole Barracks Complex 1,300
Renewal.
GY....................................... Wuerzburg................... Whole Barracks Complex 3,350
Renewal.
KR....................................... Camp Carroll................ Whole Barracks Complex 9,000
Renewal.
KR....................................... Camp Walker................. Whole Barracks Complex 20,000
Renewal.
2005
AK....................................... Fort Richardson............. Whole Barracks Complex 18,000
Renewal.
HI....................................... Schofield Barracks.......... Whole Barracks Complex 34,000
Renewal.
HI....................................... Schofield Barracks.......... Whole Barracks Complex 46,600
Renewal.
KS....................................... Fort Riley.................. Whole Barracks Complex 40,000
Renewal.
KY....................................... Fort Campbell............... Whole Barracks Complex 35,000
Renewal.
NC....................................... Fort Bragg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 12,000
Renewal.
NC....................................... Fort Bragg.................. Whole Barracks Complex 54,000
Renewal.
VA....................................... Fort Myer................... Whole Barracks Complex 6,000
Renewal.
VA....................................... Fort Myer................... Whole Barracks Complex 6,200
Renewal.
WA....................................... Fort Lewis.................. Whole Barracks Complex 49,000
Renewal.
GY....................................... Various, Germany............ Whole Barracks Complex 21,500
Renewal.
GY....................................... Various, Germany............ Whole Barracks Complex 30,700
Renewal.
KR....................................... Camp Stanley................ Whole Barracks Complex 10,000
Renewal.
KR....................................... Various Korea............... Whole Barracks Complex 9,500
Renewal.
KR....................................... Yongsan..................... Whole Barracks Complex 20,000
Renewal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Will the shift to this housing standard improve quality
of life for soldiers? Will it impact retention?
Answer. Without a doubt, the one-plus-one standard improves the
quality of life for single soldiers. Investment in the one-plus-one
standard is expected to promote the retention of highly trained and
experienced first-term soldiers. One-plus-one is not only a room
configuration but a whole community that covers all living and working
aspects of a soldier's life while in garrison. Commanders in the field
who have troops living in the new barracks and working in the new
support facilities are the strongest supporters of the program. The new
barracks complexes have improved troop morale, while at the same time
enhancing efficiency of garrison functional operations and readiness.
chemical demilitarization
Question. Mr. Secretary, last year the Congress realigned the
MILCON funding for the Chemical Demilitarization Program from the Army
to the Defense-wide account. I see that in the fiscal year 2000 budget
submission, that the military construction funding is back in the
Army's budget. If the program encounters problems or cost overruns,
does that put the Army at risk?
Answer. All known Chemical Demilitarization Program requirements
were fully funded at the time of the transfer to the Army; as such, the
Army's topline was commensurately increased to adequately resource the
Program through completion. The Army is totally committed to manage
this program within the approved life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE).
However, if unexpected circumstances result in cost exceeding the LCCE,
other Army programs are potentially at risk.
Question. There is approximately $261 million in the budget for
Chem-Demil construction. Can you execute that much funding in one year?
Does that entail double or triple shifts of construction workers? Would
you provide for the record how the Corps will execute those contracts
for $60 million and above?
Answer. Yes, we expect all the MILCON funds requested for fiscal
year 2000 to be required during that fiscal year. Based on current
execution plans, all of the programmed construction funds will be
placed during fiscal year 2000 with the exception of a limited amount
of funds. These funds will be retained for contingencies for unknown
construction changes and associated supervision, inspection, and
overhead, for engineering during construction, and for the development
of as-built drawings. The facilities at Anniston and Umatilla will be
completed during fiscal year 2000. The construction of the facilities
at Pine Bluff, Aberdeen, and Newport will be continuing and is expected
to proceed at near or at full capacity during the fiscal year.
Umatilla is the only facility where the contractor is working
double shifts instead of single shifts. This is expected to continue
until construction completion in the third quarter of fiscal year 2000.
Each of the seven demilitarization facilities is being constructed
using a single, incrementally funded construction contract. The fiscal
year 2000 budget requests funding increments in excess of $60 million
for Pine Bluff, Aberdeen, and Newport. For Pine Bluff, construction in
fiscal year 2000 will include completion of the site work, the
Personnel Support Complex, the Medical Maintenance Building, the Entry
Control Facility, and the Process and Utility Building, while
construction will continue on the Munitions Demilitarization Building.
For Aberdeen and Newport, construction at each site in fiscal year 2000
will include finishing the design, doing site work, and starting
construction of the Chemical Disposal Building, the Process Auxiliary
Building, the Utility Building, the Standby Generator Building, the
Laboratory, the Personnel Support Building, the Entry Control Facility,
the Gas Mask Storage Facility, and the Site Storage Facility.
military construction execution
Question. Secretary Apgar, all components of the Army have greatly
improved their construction project execution the past several years.
How will advance appropriations and phased funding impact your
execution? If we permanently adopt such a phased funding mechanism for
military construction, what would be the long-term impact on the Army?
Answer. If the budget is approved as requested, the fiscal year
2000 program is fully executable (awardable) within the initial fiscal
year of funding.
The broad use of incremental funding of military construction,
however, is a one-time initiative to fund critical readiness
requirements. There is no intent to continue the practice in the
future. Continuation of the practice would reduce the Army's ability to
program future construction due to the commitment of future-year funds
to pay the balance on prior years' incrementally funded work.
Also, while incremental funding may be appropriate for certain
large-scale construction projects, such as hospitals and chemical
demilitarization facilities, it is not necessarily conducive to small,
short-duration projects. Experience with incrementally funding smaller
dollar value contracts is limited. In the long term, the availability
of only limited funds in the initial fiscal year awards and
solicitations may be subject to higher bids because of restrictions on
ordering materials and on the perception by smaller contractors of
added risk due to incremental funding. For the Army National Guard
incremental funding will impact on the first year execution of some
projects. Some States are prohibited by state statute from awarding
contracts without full funding being immediately available. These
States would delay execution to the second year of appropriation. For
the same reason, other States, while not prohibited from contracting,
would probably delay execution to fourth quarter to ensure continuous
funding.
brac execution
Question. With some of the BRAC money split between fiscal year
2000 and fiscal year 2001, how will that affect implementation of the
95 BRAC decisions? How much money was realigned from fiscal year 2000
to fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 President's budget includes adequate
funds to fully implement all remaining closure and realignment actions.
The Army has requested advance appropriations of $196 million in fiscal
year 2001 for the Army BRAC program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Stevens
replacement of bassett army hospital
Question. Secretary Apgar, the Army intends to build a new hospital
at Fort Wainwright in my state, beginning in fiscal year 2000. What is
the Army's funding strategy for this project and will it be completed?
Answer: The Defense Medical Military Construction Program submitted
the new Fort Wainwright hospital in the fiscal year 2000 President's
Budget for $133,000,000. The project was requested to be appropriated
over 5 years with the phases being fiscal year 2000--$18,000,000;
fiscal year 2001--$56,000,000; fiscal year 2002--$34,000,000; fiscal
year 2003--$20,000,000; fiscal year 2004--$5,000,000. This project is
estimated for construction completion by the summer of fiscal 2004.
Question. Is there funding in the budget to demolish the existing
Bassett Hospital located at Fort Wainwright?
Answer. Yes. The funding for demolition of existing Bassett Army
Community Hospital at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, is included in the last
two phases (Phases 4 and 5) of this project in fiscal year 2003 and
fiscal year 2004.
army guard and reserve milcon funding
Question. Secretary Apgar, over the past several years, the
committee has worked with the Army to ensure that they provided a
minimum level of funding for the Army Guard. We agreed upon $50 million
each year. This year the Army has only provided the Army Guard $16
million under this phased-funded scheme. Can you explain to me why the
Army did not honor its commitment to the Committee?
Answer. Just like the other DOD components, the Army Guard MCNG
program was incrementally funded. The Army Guard authorization remains
in excess of $50 million, but to meet funding guidelines, only $16
million of the appropriation was requested in fiscal year 2000, with
the balance requested as an advance appropriation.
Question. What kind of message does the Army send to its Reserve
Components when it provides them less than $40 million in total for all
of their infrastructure requirements?
Answer. Readiness requirements have been addressed and improved in
fiscal year 2000. The Army National Guard budget request contains the
full authorization in recognition of Congressional interest. However it
seeks only $16 million in appropriation, because that was all that was
available under the circumstances. Funds garnered by MILCON incremental
funding were used as part of this readiness plus-up. The Army Reserve
received some of this readiness enhancement and supports that. The Army
Reserve also understands that it has not been singled out as a bill
payer, and they received cuts consistent with the other components. The
key is OSD's assurance that the balance of the incremental funding will
be provided in fiscal year 2001. Funds to maintain the Army Reserve's
current infrastructure has not been decremented in fiscal year 2000.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
army national guard and reserve
Question. Mr. Apgar, when I compare the funding levels from last
year to this year for both the Guard and Reserve, I'm very concerned.
For the Army Reserve, funds are decreasing from $102 million to a
requested $23 million. Likewise, the National Guard funds are
decreasing from $145 million to $16 million. How on earth are you going
to be able to sustain the Guard and Reserve with these minimal levels
of funding?
Answer. The decrease in funding is a one time special event. For
the Army Reserve, an authorization request of $81,215,000 and an
appropriation request of $23,120,000 was all that was affordable under
the circumstances. The Army Reserve believes that there will be no
significant impact to Reserve Component facilities. The Army National
Guard fiscal year 2000 MILCON submission was in keeping with the DOD
plan for incremental funding. An authorization request of $57,402,000
and an appropriation request of $16,045,000 was all that was affordable
under the circumstances.
Question. Will the Yakima MATES project be capable of construction
with only $3.5 million out of $16 million being appropriated this year,
according to your request?
Answer. Not under the current appropriation request. State statutes
prohibit partial funding and the Washington Army National Guard will
not be able to award the contract if full funding is not available.
However, if informal reprogramming is based on the full authorization
or if Congress approved formal reprogramming for the Yakima MATES, then
this project could be awarded in fiscal year 2000.
Question. General Helmly and General Squier, can you tell me what
input the Reserve and Guard had in the decision to seek incremental
funding for MILCON projects? Are you comfortable with this plan?
Answer. The U.S. Army Reserve did not provide any input into the
decision to seek incremental funding for fiscal year 2000 MILCON
projects. We feel comfortable with our plan to execute the fiscal year
2000 MILCON projects if Congress approves the budget as submitted and
provides full authorization, advance appropriations, and an increase in
reprogramming threshold. The Army National Guard also had no input into
the decision to submit MILCON projects for incremental funding. The
Army National Guard supports this concept as submitted on a one-time
basis and will find ways to make it work as directed.
Question. Mr. Apgar, in recent years, Congress has had to do the
heavy lifting on providing adequate MILCON funding for the Guard and
Reserve. Given the importance of the Guard and Reserve to our national
security, I would expect to see an effort to increase MILCON funding
again this year. How would you recommend that any additional projects
be funded this year--additional incremental funding, full funding, or
what?
Answer. The Army recommends that any additional projects for fiscal
year 2000 that are added to the Guard or the Reserves be fully funded.
This would provide the infrastructure upgrades that are desperately
needed in the Reserve Components.
budget questions
Question. In your overview of funding, it becomes clear that
Chemical Demilitarization ends up on top for the requested
appropriations amount compared to mission projects and quality of life
projects. Can you explain to the Committee how you prioritized when
recommending your appropriations levels compared to your authorized
levels for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Some projects, such as Chemical Demilitarization; are
already being executed under incremental funding. The appropriation
request in fiscal year 2000 for these projects represents a higher
level of funding required to meet contractual obligations. Also,
smaller projects with short construction duration were funded at
approximately 30 percent to ensure projects are not held up for lack of
sufficient funds due to rapid construction execution. All other active
Army projects are funded at approximately 15 percent of the contract
amount, based on historic first year execution. The Army Reserve funded
projects between 6 and 36 percent while the National Guard funded all
projects at 21 percent.
Question. The Fort Lewis physical fitness center is one of the
quality of life projects you list, and is slated to receive $1.85
million this year. Can you comment on the status of this project in
light of the advanced appropriations? Similarly, can you comment on the
support project at Fort Lewis, the Tank Trail Erosion project?
Answer. The Fort Lewis physical fitness center's estimated
construction contract award is in January 2000. The requested advanced
appropriations and reprogramming authority will ensure the project is
executed without disruption or delay due to funding constraints.
The Tank Trail Erosion project is the fifth phase of a ten phase
project. The fifth phase is fully funded, as were the previous four
phases, and will not require advanced appropriations for completion of
this phase.
Department of the Air Force
STATEMENT OF RUBY B. DEMESME, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE, MANPOWER, RESERVE AFFAIRS,
INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MAJ. GEN. EUGENE A. LUPIA, HEADQUARTERS, USAF, THE CIVIL
ENGINEER, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, INSTALLATIONS AND
LOGISTICS
BRIG. GEN. CRAIG R. MCKINLEY, DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
COL. RICHARD R. KOEPP, DIRECTOR, INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS,
OFFICE OF AIR FORCE RESERVE
THOMAS W L. MCCALL, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
(ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH)
INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES
Senator Burns. We will next hear from the United States Air
Force, Ruby B. Demesme, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force,
Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations and Environment. Thank
you for the visit the other day.
We also have General Lupia, The Civil Engineer, Deputy
Chief of Staff, Installations and Logistics; Brigadier General
Craig R. McKinley, Deputy Director, Air National Guard; and
Colonel Richard R. Koepp, Director, Installations and
Logistics, Office of Air Force Reserve. We welcome you this
morning.
Secretary Demesme.
Ms. Demesme. Good morning, Senator. I will take just a few
minutes to highlight our Military Construction (MILCON)
program.
The Air Force is striving to maintain facilities and
infrastructure to preclude weakening unit readiness, impairing
our mission accomplishments, or degrading our peoples' quality
of life; therefore, our corporate strategy is to accomplish
these goals by ensuring that the MILCON program places emphasis
on supporting our new mission beddowns, our current mission
activities, ensuring continued access to critical ranges and
air space, reinvesting in the few remaining bases overseas,
funding our critical environmental compliance projects, and
maintaining and operating our maintenance programs to protect
the quality of life of our personnel and their families.
We recognize the integral role the air reserve components
play in our total force mission, and our program assures that
their construction needs are addressed along with those of the
active force.
Mr. Chairman, for the next few minutes I will in very
precise terms review our total force MILCON program, to include
military family housing and base realignment and closure.
The Air Force total MILCON budget request for fiscal year
2000 is $1.85 billion. Our current mission program includes
runway and ramp repair projects, additions and alterations to
existing facilities, and two composite support complexes. It is
important that our people operate in an environment designed to
help them accomplish their mission; so, therefore, our new
mission program supports our weapons system beddowns, such as
the F-22 fighter, the C-17 air lifter, the B-2 bomber, the KC-
135 tanker, the joint primary aircraft training system, or
JPATS (Joint Primary Aircraft Training System), and the
construction of the enhanced training range in Idaho.
Achieving and maintaining military readiness is extremely
difficult, but it is our utmost priority. While modern
technology enables our forces to perform their missions more
effectively, technology cannot substitute for high-quality
people. So to retain our people we must meet their needs, and,
therefore, our program plans enlisted dormitories, fitness
centers, and community support facilities at various locations.
We must also invest in force protection, safety and quality
of life facilities, and our overseas bases. We now have 11 main
operating bases overseas. Regrettably, the reduced MILCON
investment, along with inadequate host nation support and
funding, means that we are not fully meeting our MILCON program
overseas needs.
Family housing is one of our most important programs, and
we are extremely appreciative of this committee's strong
support. Our MILCON program reflects efforts to continue to
revitalize or replace worn-out housing units that are no longer
economical to maintain.
Our Base Relignment and Closure (BRAC) request supports the
1995 decision to realign Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, as well
as supports our design costs for the fiscal year 2001 program.
I also note the Air Force strongly supports Secretary Cohens
request for two additional BRAC rounds.
Despite the challenges we have a number of good news
stories. For example, using the new legislation, this past year
we awarded the Department of Defense's first privatized housing
project at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. We also are the
proud recipients of almost one-third of the Department of
Defense's 42 environmental awards.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this committee's continued
support is vital for us to accomplish our program goals. Our
MILCON submission reflects the corporate priorities that
support weapons systems modernization, and also provides a fair
and equal, safe and secure, environment for our people to work
and play.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I am ready to discuss any issues that you have, or answer
any questions that you might have for us at this time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ruby B. Demesme
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, good day. I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Department of
the Air Force fiscal year 2000 Military Construction (MILCON) program.
While this is my first appearance before the committee, I am
nonetheless appreciative of your continuing support for our uniformed
members and their families.
Mr. Chairman, we are cognizant that the Air Force could not
maintain the quality of any of its facilities, and the advantages they
provide, without the strong support we have always received from this
committee, for which we are most appreciative.
Overview
As we adjust to ever changing world conditions and revise our
mission, plan, and structure to meet our responsibilities, both at home
and those associated with peacekeeping and other deployments abroad, it
is imperative that we establish and maintain standards to provide an
adequate quality of life for our people. Since people have been and
remain the most important weapon system in our inventory, we must
listen to what they tell us they need if we want to keep them in
uniform. Well, we've asked, and we've listened, and we are now trying
to respond to their stated desires for safe, accessible, and affordable
housing, health care facilities, child development centers, and work
environments. Meeting all of these demands is no easy task, yet we've
made every effort to balance these needs with those of modernization.
The fiscal year 2000 MILCON budget request reflects the results of our
strategy.
As we merge operations into an Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF),
it is more important than ever that the interface and mutuality between
the active and reserve components be seamless. This means ensuring the
Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve (AFR) receive adequate
MILCON funding along with the Active forces. This budget also addresses
their needs.
The Total Force concept enables the Air Force to aggressively
manage the most formidable obstacles to troop retention and readiness--
heavy taskings and tough fiscal constraints. Despite these challenges,
we must balance MILCON needs across the total force, to include our
very capable Ready Reserve and Guard units, as we transition the Air
Force into the 21st Century.
Support operations for our EAF concept must become better and less
expensive: better, because quality infrastructure contributes to
quality of life, which improves morale, retention, and the readiness of
the force: and less expensive in order to free up funds for the high
priority weapon systems modernization we need to maintain battlefield
dominance.
We are continually examining internal operations and support
activities to determine where we can leverage our resources. We are
taking actions to right-size, to consolidate like functions, to
demolish excess facilities, and to enhance joint use of facilities
between service components and government agencies (such as the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration), and to embrace better
business practices. These initiatives focus on improving the efficiency
and performance of the Air Force facility support structure.
The reality is that, in order to fund higher priority programs, the
Air Force is underinvesting in installation programs. Each year we
balance installation support operations against other Air Force
priorities, which results in a funding stream based on an acceptable
level of risk. This means that our installation programs continue to be
underfunded.
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 Quadrennial Defense Review. 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. Consequently, the
Air Force corporate strategy for the installation support program
includes:
--Maintaining our operations and maintenance programs to preserve the
quality of life of our personnel and their families.
--Ensuring that our MILCON program places emphasis on supporting new
mission beddowns and current mission necessities, to include
redirecting limited capital investment to our most pressing
requirements.
--Ensuring continued access to critical ranges and airspace.
--Reinvesting in the few remaining overseas bases, which, even after
host-nation burdensharing, have numerous facility needs
critical to Air Force core competencies.
--Incorporating environment, health and safety cost considerations
into core business practices to lower cost and to improve
performance while continuing to fund critical environmental
projects to meet compliance requirements.
The Air Force continues to look at our installation facility
requirements with a view towards leaner operations. We are continuing
to embrace better business practices by considering private sector
business ventures for everything we do. This allows us to leverage our
limited resources by incorporating new innovative ideas. These new
ideas will continue to shape the templates for installations in the
21st Century.
Mr. Chairman, I now would like to proceed to discuss the major
programs in our fiscal year 2000 MILCON budget request. I will review
the total force MILCON program, to include discussion of the Military
Family Housing (MFH) program. Finally, I will address the Air Force
perspective on the Department of Defense request for funding of the
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) accounts.
Air Force Military Construction Budget
The Air Force MILCON program consists of five principal areas: New
Mission; Current Mission; Planning & Design and Unspecified Minor
Construction; Environmental; and BRAC. New Mission construction
supports the beddown of new weapons systems and force structure
realignments. Current Mission construction revitalizes existing
facilities and infrastructure, and builds new facilities to correct
existing deficiencies. Planning & Design and Unspecified Minor
Construction includes funds to design our construction projects and to
fund a small program to handle urgent, unforeseen construction
requirements. The environmental program consists of those regulatory
compliance projects, which must be accomplished by law, or to avoid
increased health or safety risks to people on or off our installations.
The BRAC program supports the beddown of realigned missions.
The Air Force proposes financing its fiscal year 2000 MILCON
program through a combination of regular appropriations and advance
appropriations. We are requesting $315 million in fiscal year 2000
appropriations and $686 million in appropriations for fiscal year 2001
to enable completion of the fiscal year 2000 program. This one-time
financing methodology enables the Air Force to fulfill its commitment
to providing quality facilities, while maximizing the use of fiscal
year 2000 resources for other readiness and modernization needs. The
Air Force has added the $686 million needed to complete the fiscal year
2000 projects to its fiscal year 2001 program. The use of advance
appropriations for fiscal year 2000 projects has no impact on the Air
Force's planned MILCON for fiscal year 2001 through 2005. This is not
the preferred method of budgeting for construction projects, but we
expect to execute the fiscal year 2000 program without delays or added
costs provided Congress approves full authorization and advance
appropriations for the projects requested.
For fiscal year 2000, we are requesting a program of $1.85 billion
for MILCON. This request includes $1.75 billion for active duty MILCON
($597 million for traditional MILCON and $1.150 billion for MFH); $73
million for ANG; $29 million for AFR; and $4.7 million for BRAC MILCON.
The Total Air Force Military Construction Program
Similar to last year, the Air Force's fiscal year 2000 MILCON and
MFH 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 programs; 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. These funds are distributed based on the most urgent, corporate
needs of the total force. The strategy for allocating these funds is
inextricably tied to major commands (to include the AFR and ANG), Chief
of Staff, and Secretary of the Air Force priorities.
To determine priorities, each major command submits a prioritized,
unconstrained list of its construction requirements. The MILCON
integrated process team, then uses a weighted matrix to establish a
cross-cutting investment program. This results in 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, ANG, and AFR components. This priority list is
presented to the corporate leadership 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 ensures that we exercise the stewardship entrusted to us for
maintaining eighty-seven major installations.
Our fiscal year 2000 current mission MILCON program consists of 54
projects totaling $467 million. These projects include a variety of
facilities at a number of installations to include: runway and ramp
repair projects at Eglin Auxiliary Field 9, Florida; Davis-Monthan Air
Force Base, Arizona; Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina; and Elmendorf
and Eielson Air Force Bases, Alaska; addition and alteration to the Air
Force Reserve Headquarters facility at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia;
and constructing two composite support complexes for the Air National
Guard at Kulis, Alaska and Savannah, Georgia. These projects are
critical to maintaining aircraft readiness and to enhance the work
environment of the consolidated functions, thereby improving overall
efficiency and reducing costs associated with stress and the
frustration of system failure.
We will continue our emphasis on the effective use of 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 Mission
It is important that our people are able to operate in an
environment designed to accomplish their missions. The Air Force
modernization programs is designed to enhance the unique capabilities
embodied in our specialized core competencies. These competencies
provide the rapid, precise, global response that enables our combatant
commanders to respond quickly to regional conflicts in support of the
national strategy.
We need MILCON to support weapon system beddowns, such as the F-22
fighter, C-17 airlifter, B-2 bomber, KC-135 tanker, Joint Primary
Aircraft Training System (JPATS), and to improve aircrew proficiency
training by constructing, for example, the Enhanced Training Range in
Idaho (Juniper Butte Range). Our entire MILCON program needed to
support new mission requirements consisting of 23 projects totals $154
million.
F-22 Raptor
The F-22, our #1 modernization priority, is the Air Force's next
generation air superiority fighter being developed to counter threats
posed by advance surface-to-air missile systems and next generation
fighters. The proposed location for the F-22 follow-on operational test
and evaluation and the weapons school beddown is Nellis Air Force Base,
Nevada. The fiscal year 2000 MILCON includes three F-22 projects at
Nellis Air Force Base totaling $19 million.
C-17 Globemaster III
The C-17 Globemaster III aircraft is designed to replace our aging
fleet of C-141 Starlifters, which currently are operating beyond their
intended design life. The C-17 provides rapid global mobility by
combining the C-141 airlift capabilities, the C-5 capability to carry
oversize cargo, and the C-130 capability to land directly on short,
forward-located airstrips.
McChord Air Force Base, Washington, was designated as the second
operational base for the C-17. We had already identified Charleston Air
Force Base, South Carolina, as the first operational base, and Altus
Air Force Base, Oklahoma, as the C-17 training base. Since then, we
have identified Jackson International Airport, Mississippi, as the
proposed Air National Guard C-17 operating location. To support this
program, the fiscal year 2000 MILCON request includes Active and AFR
facilities at McChord Air Force Base, Washington, and a corrosion
control facility at Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina.
b-2 spirit
The B-2 is a multi-role bomber capable of delivering both
conventional and nuclear munitions. The bomber represents a major leap
forward in technology and is an important milestone in the U.S. bomber
modernization program. Our fiscal year 2000 MILCON program includes one
$23 million project at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.
kc-135 stratotanker
The KC-135 principal mission is refueling. This asset greatly
enhances the Air Force's capability to accomplish its mission of Global
Engagement. We have four projects in the fiscal year 2000 MILCON to
support the KC-135 totaling $19 million. The projects are: flight
simulator facilities at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia and RAF
Mildenhall, United Kingdom; repair parking ramp at Eielson Air Force
Base, Alaska; and a squadron operations and aircraft maintenance unit
at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas.
joint primary aircraft training system (jpats)
JPATS is a joint Air Force and Navy primary trainer. The JPATS T-6A
Texan II aircraft replaces existing fleets of Air Force T-37s and Navy
T-34s. The aircraft will be used to train entry-level pilots,
navigators, and naval flight officers. The fiscal year 2000 MILCON
includes one JPATS project at Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas for $3
million.
enhanced training range in idaho (juniper butte)
The Air Force is building a training range on Bureau of Land
Management and Idaho state lands in Southwest Idaho, and modifying
airspace for local training use by Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho,
crews. The range will simulate real-world scenarios and will allow
aircrews to plan and practice complex missions. This project will
balance realistic local training with careful consideration of
environmental, cultural, and economic concerns. In addition to
providing realistic training, the range's close proximity to Mountain
Home Air Force Base increases efficiency by allowing crews to convert
time currently spent in transit to a distant range into actual training
time. The new range will include a 12,000-acre drop zone site; a 640-
acre and four 5-acre no-drop zone sites; simulated target areas; and 10
one acre and twenty quarter acre emitter sites. This multi-year range
program request includes $15 million in fiscal year 2000 for phase II,
and $2 million for a defense access road project.
Quality of Life
Achieving and maintaining military readiness is our number one
priority. While modern technology enables our forces to perform their
missions more effectively, it cannot substitute for high quality
people. People, our most treasured resource, are the critical
components of readiness. It is imperative that we maintain a highly
motivated and trained fighting force to effectively respond to the
demands placed on them. We have 95,000 military members forward
stationed or deployed and we urgently need to fund quality improvements
that address our troops' top concerns: retirement pay; fair and
competitive compensation; safe, affordable, and adequate housing;
quality health care; balanced tempo; robust community and family
programs; and expanded educational opportunities. These are the
initiatives that commanders, first sergeants, and airmen say are
important to them.
The quality of life of our people must be commensurate with the
sacrifices we ask them to make. Addressing these concerns has enabled
us to better manage recruiting and retention challenges. Offering an
attractive living environment to those aspiring to serve this great
country results in improved quality of life for our personnel, and
that, Mr. Chairman, translates into enhanced readiness.
The MILCON program improves quality of life by renovating or
constructing dormitories and community support facilities. Our three-
step dormitory investment strategy, as outlined in the Air Force
dormitory master plan, is as follows: (1) the buy-out of all permanent
party central latrine dormitories, now complete given the generous
congressional support in fiscal year 1999; (2) the elimination of
shortages; and (3) the replacement of our worst remaining dorms.
We balance dormitory investment against additional requests for
community support facilities. This year 's MILCON program funds eight
enlisted dormitory projects at eight stateside installations, and one
project overseas, for a total of $90.5 million. In addition to the
dormitories, the MILCON program funds a child development center at RAF
Lakenheath, United Kingdom; a dining facility at Keesler Air Force
Base, Mississippi; visitors quarters at McGuire Air Force Base, New
Jersey; and new or modified fitness centers at Travis Air Force Base,
California; Schriever (formerly Falcon) Air Force Base, Colorado;
MacDill Air Force Base, Florida; Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri; and
Osan Air Base, Korea, for a total of $51 million.
Optimize Use of Public and Private Resources
As the Air Force operationalizes its EAF concept, we must free up
precious funds for modernization. To do this, we continue to adopt
modern business practices, e.g., eliminating redundancy; using
competition to improve quality and to reduce costs; and reducing
support structures to free up resources for other higher priority
needs. Nonetheless, we must keep in mind that the purpose of our
competitive sourcing and privatizing initiatives is the preservation of
the ``tooth'' and streamlining the ``tail.''
military family housing
We awarded our first housing privatization project last summer at
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. While the contracting process took
longer than we would have liked, it was necessary to develop the new
documents, policies, and procedures that will allow us to eliminate
many hurdles on future projects.
The Air Force continues to solicit advice from national real estate
and financial institutions on how to improve our performance in
privatization. We firmly believe that through privatization we can
provide new homes to our airmen in less time than using the standard
MILCON process.
utilities
Meanwhile, we are embracing a defense reform initiative that places
us primarily in the energy management business, which will reduce our
role in the infrastructure business. Our goal is to privatize utility
systems where it makes economic sense and does not negatively impact
national security.
To date we have identified 463 utility systems for potential
privatization, and analysis for 55 of these systems is currently
underway. We have also programmed 204 systems for analysis in fiscal
year 1999, and the remaining 204 systems in fiscal year 2000. As a
result, the Air Force will be able to meet the goals established by the
Department of Defense to privatize all utility systems by 2003.
laboratory infrastructure
We are also exploring innovative partnership arrangements with
industry to achieve real reductions in Research, Development,
Technology & Evaluation (RDT&E) infrastructure costs through mutually
beneficial use of Air Force-owned land and facilities. By working with
local communities and government entities at the Air Force research
sites, we are confident we can develop more efficient operations. One
example is the joint proposal being negotiated between our Rome
research site and the state of New York. Through a combined funding
source consisting of MILCON, state and local government funds, and a
bond issue, the Rome research site will be able to divest themselves of
14 old and expensive-to-maintain buildings in order to acquire one new
building with greatly reduced operations and maintenance costs.
Additional savings in manpower will come through reduced requirements
for security, facility management, and maintenance. The innovative
lease arrangement will substantially reduce the costs to the government
while guaranteeing payback to the bond holders.
Another example of an innovative approach to infrastructure
requirements is the proposal for Brooks Air Force Base, the home of our
Armstrong research site. The Brooks ``city base'' concept is being
explored with the city of San Antonio and the State of Texas. This
concept would allow us to retain a research campus while turning the
rest of the base infrastructure over to the local government and to
private contractors. It also would allow the local community to have
access to the facilities currently at Brooks, and would provide a
valuable place for future industrial and commercial development while
retaining areas for parks and recreation. As with the Rome research
site in New York, the city base at Brooks would greatly reduce
infrastructure costs to the government since it would no longer be
responsible for the upkeep of the support facilities and would need to
maintain only the facilities actually used for research. These types of
partnerships with the local communities have great potential and may
become models for future Air Force infrastructure plans.
Demolition
While we strive to increase our maintenance dollar for
infrastructure or new facilities; we must continue to demolish worn out
or obsolete facilities in order to reduce recurring operations and
maintenance costs. Over the past three fiscal years, we have demolished
over nine million square feet of obsolete facilities.
Overseas Military Construction
We must also invest in force protection, safety, and quality of
life at our overseas bases. We now have eleven overseas main operating
bases, of which six are to the East: two in England, two in Germany,
one in Italy, and one in Turkey; and five bases in the Pacific: three
in Japan and two in Korea. After years of base closures and force
reductions, we have achieved stability in the overseas arena. However,
the reduced MILCON investment coupled with inadequate host-nation
funding does not meet our overseas requirements. Consequently, while we
are actively pursuing NATO funding, increased host-nation funding, and
payment-in-kind, our quality of life improvement needs remain greater
than available burden-sharing funding can satisfy.
Our fiscal year 2000 MILCON program for our European and Pacific
installations totals $77 million. The program consists of a
consolidated corrosion control and maintenance complex, a KC-135 flight
simulator facility, and an operations facility at RAF Mildenhall; and a
consolidated support complex at RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom. Also in
the program are a $2 million global positioning system control station
on Ascension Island, and a $2 million project for apron security
lighting at Lajes Air Base, Portugal. As mentioned earlier, there is
one overseas dormitory project; an addition/alteration to the physical
fitness center, at Osan Air Base, Korea; and a child development center
at RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom. We ask for your support of these
important operational and quality of life projects that represent
critical requirements for our airmen and their families located
overseas.
We are sending a precautionary prefinancing statement to the NATO
infrastructure committees for all NATO-eligible European projects.
These statements will permit recoupment from the NATO infrastructure
program if eligibility is subsequently established.
Environmental Military Construction
As our record shows, we are dedicated to enhancing our already open
relationships with both the regulatory community and the neighborhoods
around our installations. We strive to ensure that our operations meet
all environmental regulations and laws, and we seek out partnerships
with local regulatory and commercial sector counterparts to share ideas
and to create an atmosphere of trust.
Our continuing campaign to foster an environmental ethic within the
Air Force, both here in the US and abroad, has enabled us to enhance
operational readiness, be a good neighbor, and leverage our resources
to ensure that we remain a leader in environmental compliance, cleanup,
and pollution prevention.
As a result of these cooperative efforts over the past two years,
the Air Force environmental program has received top honors in almost
one-third of the 42 awards recognized by the Department of Defense. We
were recognized for overall environmental quality, pollution
prevention, and recycling. 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 just seven in the
first quarter of fiscal year 1999.
Our major environmental stewardship projects are the renewal of the
Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona and the Nellis Range in Nevada. We
anticipate submitting renewal legislation to Congress in late summer.
Our environmental compliance MILCON request for fiscal year 2000 totals
$27 million for eight, class-1 ``must pay'' compliance projects. Our
program primarily focuses on projects for fire training facilities,
which are closed due to fuel contaminated land and potential ground
water contamination. These fire training facilities are located at
Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii; an ANG fire training facility at
Savannah International Airport, Georgia; and an AFR fire training
facility at Homestead Air Reserve Station, Florida. We also have two
wastewater treatment facility projects at RAF Feltwell and RAF
Molesworth, United Kingdom; a hazardous material storage facility at
RAF Mildenhall, United Kingdom; a sanitary sewer line project at
Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado; and a project to close the landfill
at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.
All of these projects satisfy class-1 requirements. (Class-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 $15 million in fiscal year 2000 for unspecified
minor construction, which will provide the total Air Force with a
primary means of responding to small, unforeseen facility requirements
that cannot wait for normal MILCON. From fiscal year 1994 through
fiscal year 1998, a total of $6 million was reprogrammed into the
account to fund urgent requirements. The fiscal year 1994 through
fiscal year 1999 accounts are fully obligated, or committed, to valid
projects.
Planning and Design
Our request for fiscal year 2000 planning and design is $35
million. These funds are required to complete design of the fiscal year
2001 construction program and to start design of our fiscal year 2002
projects.
Construction Supervision, Inspection and Overhead
The Air Force active and Reserve forces will annualize its
appropriations for construction supervision, inspection and overhead
over five budget years based on fiscal year 1993-97 outlay rates. This
defers total obligation authority in the initial budget year , and
budgets for supervision, inspection, and overhead funds as needed, as
opposed to maintaining unobligated balances.
Military Family Housing
As in years past, we consider 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 our families. Maintaining our
responsibility to the family housing program is even more important in
this era of major force reductions and increased frequency and length
of deployments. 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, a housing
program to best serve our families.
Due in large part to strong congressional support, our MFH
investment program has been sustained during recent force structure
changes. As of this fiscal year, the average age of our housing
inventory is 35 years and 61,000 of our 110,000 units require
revitalization.
Our MFH investment has three prongs: the replacement/ improvement
program, the operation and maintenance program, and the leverage we can
obtain through a balanced privatization program. The $328 million
fiscal year 2000 MFH replacement/improvement program will replace 1180
worn-out units at 15 separate locations, and will improve 1334 units at
15 locations. The housing operations & maintenance program totals $822
million. It supports ``must pay'' requirements such as refuse
collection, snow removal, utilities, leases, and critical housing
maintenance tasks. These are essential repairs that must be done to
keep the houses in good condition. Finally, we will use privatization
at selected locations to leverage our funds. Privatization is a tool
which allows us to accelerate the buyout of repairs to adequate homes
and we ask for your continued strong support for our requested
investment levels to ensure we have sufficient capital to accelerate
the repair of our inadequate housing.
Housing Improvements
The Air Force ``whole house/whole neighborhood'' improvement
concept has proven extremely successful. Under this concept, we upgrade
older homes to contemporary standards by updating worn-out bathrooms
and kitchens, replacing obsolete utility and structural systems,
providing additional living space as permitted by law, and, at the same
time, accomplishing required maintenance and repair. The result is a
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 2000 improvement request is $124 million. This
amount revitalizes 1334 homes at 15 bases. This includes $74 million
for 903 homes stateside, $49 million for 431 homes overseas, and $1.2
million for two neighborhood improvement projects.
housing construction
We are requesting $186 million for fiscal year 2000 projects, with
$173 million at 14 stateside bases to replace 1105 existing houses, and
$13 million at one overseas base (Lajes) to replace 75 existing houses
that are no longer economical to maintain.
operations, utilities and maintenance
Our fiscal year 2000 request for family housing operations,
utilities, and maintenance is $703 million. These funds are necessary
to operate and maintain the 110,000 homes in the Air Force inventory.
Approximately 41 percent of this request represents the Air Force's
obligation as the landlord for items such as utilities, refuse
collection, and other key services. The remaining 59 percent of the
funds is for maintenance for the homes and infrastructure.
planning and design and leasing
We have requested $136 million for planning and design, and for
leasing. This includes $17 million for planning and design of new
construction and improvement programs, and $119 million for leasing
approximately 4,100 domestic and 3,900 foreign homes. 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 installations in the US.
Our fiscal year 2000 MFH budget request reflects our policy to
ensure that our families have access to safe, affordable and adequate
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 BRAC fiscal year 2000 MILCON request is $4.7 million
for 3 construction projects supporting the BRAC 1995 decision to
realign Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, and for final design costs of
fiscal year 2001 BRAC construction. The projects are a communication
facility addition, and a maintenance facility, at Kelly Air Force Base,
Texas, and a civil engineering shop addition, at Lackland Air Force
Base, Texas.
The Air Force requirements included in the Department of Defense
fiscal year 2000 budget request for the BRAC 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.
The Air Force continues to be committed to timely environmental
restoration that is protective of human health at our closure bases. In
addition to converting bases to civilian use, we continue the
realignment beddown process at remaining installations to ensure that
base closure neither disrupts our operational requirements nor
adversely affects quality of life. We appreciate the support of this
committee in helping us meet these objectives.
Our successes in base conversion are numerous. The Environmental
Protection Agency recently highlighted the Air Force fast-track cleanup
program at the former Bergstrom Air Force Base, Texas, designed to meet
the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport opening date. We intend to
apply our many lessons learned to future base conversions should the
Congress approve additional rounds of closures.
One final comment on BRAC. Reductions in Air Force manpower and
force structure have outpaced those in infrastructure, which results in
commanders spending scarce resources on unneeded infrastructure.
Consequently, the Secretary of Defense has requested, and the Air Force
supports, two additional rounds of base closures. Further BRAC actions
are necessary to ensure we have the proper force structure and topline
for modernization necessary to properly execute our mission and to
maintain day-to-day activities. We need BRACs now, because the Air
Force has more bases than it needs and any delay in this process delays
the realization of critical cost savings. As previously stated by
Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters, ``simply put, base
realignment and closure is tomorrow's readiness decision that we must
begin planning today.''
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for its strong
support of the Air Force MILCON program, which contributes immeasurably
to the Air Force's readiness, retention, recruiting, training and
quality of life programs.
Our fiscal year 2000 Air Force MILCON submission reflects the
corporate priorities supporting the total Air Force vision to continue
our position as the world's best and most respected air and space
force, while working to maintain our aging physical plants. Our
installations are crucial factors in Air Force readiness. We rely on
our bases to serve as our launch platforms to effectively project U. S.
air and space power, as well as places where our people live and work.
This budget submission reflects our commitment to maintain the quality
of Air Force installations.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. I will just pull one
out of the blue. Thank you for that statement.
Environmental cleanup, as a result of BRAC, in other words,
closing some of our facilities, tell me about that, and the
amount of money that you are spending. I do not know if anybody
has those figures. That was kind of a question that just popped
into my head, the progress that we are making on environmental
cleanup as a result of BRAC.
Ms. Demesme. Yes, sir. As you know, environmental cleanup
has cost a little bit more than we envisioned when we went into
the BRAC rounds, but as we have gotten into it, we are doing it
better. We partnered with a lot of the environmental agencies
to try to do it even more succinctly in the future.
Right now, we have a $291 million program for fiscal years
2000 and 2001. I have with me my environmental deputy assistant
secretary, who could give you some more figures on that, Mr.
McCall.
Senator Burns. Just give me a little bit of a progress
report, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. McCall. We spent approximately $1.9 billion to clean
up, and we are more than halfway through that. We will have
most of our sites completed by 2001. It will be well over 90
percent of our sites completed, but we will have a few sites on
some installations that still have not been done.
Part of these have been discovered as we have gone along,
and there will be some minor adjustments, but they are not
going to impact our ability to transfer property or to be
timely.
The one base that stands out different from all the rest is
McClellan, which will take us longer, probably to about 2016.
We are timing our cleanups to support property utilization so
that we will not impact the ability to reutilize. That is the
state of our program.
Senator Burns. Tell me about a base that was as large as
McClellan. Can one sector be cleaned up, or one part of that
base, and that be moved into private hands.
Mr. McCall. Yes, it can.
Senator Burns. Is that the way we are doing that?
Mr. McCall. Yes, it is.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. We were concerned about
that, because BRAC, I think all the time we were going through
the process of the BRAC, we really did not know what figure was
going to pop up when you talked about environmental cleanup
before we could move those properties. Last year we had a
little hearing, in fact, with regard to that, and finding some
problems, and you are right, there are a lot of things that are
discovered, and it becomes a surprise.
General Lupia. Senator, I want to make a comment, if I
could, on environmental cleanup, not related to BRAC, though. I
wrote you a letter this morning to let you know that Malmstrom
Air Force Base is about to be recognized for the best
environmental cleanup program in the Air Force at an awards
ceremony on the 26th of April, which we have invited you to.
OVERSEAS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Senator Burns. Well, thank you very much. Now, you
mentioned being behind in some of your overseas installations.
Would you mind telling me where you consider you have
shortages, what those shortages are, and why?
Ms. Demesme. We have shortages in Korea. I think some of
our worst places are in Korea. We are not getting the level of
support in terms of burden sharing with Korea as we are with,
let us say, Japan. We have dorms situations there that we need
replaced. We have fitness centers that we need. We have housing
that we need in that particular location.
We also have housing needs in Europe, and we have some, of
course, in Japan. General Lupia, you might want to give the
Senator a better idea of what we are planning in those areas.
General Lupia. Sir, when I was assigned as the programmer
in Europe in the mid-eighties we had 26 big operating bases
throughout Europe. In the early nineties, as we decided to
downsize and lower the number of our forces in Europe, we made
a conscious decision in the Air Force to stop asking the
Congress for money for construction until we could decide where
we would be.
Now, the result of that is, we are in six bases in Europe
today, and only six, two in the United Kingdom, two in Germany,
one in Italy, and one in Turkey. Because of the pause, I might
say, of three to four years, the bases overseas got even
further behind than they were to start with. We have two bases
left in Korea, down from a very much larger amount, just at
Osan and Kusan today, and three bases in Japan.
We asked the Congress and Senate for very little help in
Japan, because we do get a lot of burden-sharing money from the
Japanese. In recent years the Koreans have continued to give us
more and more. At Osan Air Base, we are asking you for help
with the dormitory, because it is where the highest number of
our people live off base and are exposed--in the force
protection area are exposed to the dangers of terrorism, et
cetera.
NATO has picked up a very large share of the construction
in Aviano, I know you saw that while you were there. We have a
great deal of non-appropriated funds we invested in there for
the commissary and the base exchange (BX), a new complex, and a
new DOD school, but it still left us a requirement to build and
pay for dormitories, for example, and for many of our other
U.S.-owned facilities.
Senator Burns. If I remember, there was just limited
dormitory space.
General Lupia. Yes, sir. In our program, and the Congress
has been good to us, we have been able to build dormitories,
one-plus-one dormitories, over the last couple of years to buy
out our deficit there as well.
Senator Burns. General, did we ever get an agreement with
the Italian government on some sort of permanence at Aviano?
General Lupia. Yes, sir. The length of it, I do not recall
off the top of my head, but we do have--we got that entire area
they call the Zappala area, from the Italian Air Force. That is
where we are building the commissary and the BX, and have a
military construction line item for roads, et cetera. But the
answer to your question is yes. The length of the agreement or
the terms of the agreement I am not familiar with.
Senator Burns. South Korea is going through some very
difficult financial times as a country, and we are part of
almost the total collapse of the economic community of the
Pacific rim. Are they rebounding now to where they are more
amenable for burden sharing there?
Ms. Demesme. They are more stable than they were last year
at this time, but we still are unable to increase the amount
that we can expect them to assist us with.
MILITARY HOUSING
Senator Burns. We just talked to the Army about their
privatization and their leveraging the money. We still have
members of Congress, that is what they are asking us on these
programs. Are you approaching your housing problems the same
way that the Army is?
Ms. Demesme. No, sir, we are not. We have a three-pronged
approach to housing. We are looking at traditional MILCON,
privatization and operation and maintenance (O&M). We still
have a lot that we need to do with O&M money as well. We are
taking a very measured approach to housing. We have agreed that
it is important to look at not just the needs for the day, but
how we are going to sustain those needs in the future.
We are looking at out-of-pocket expenses to our members to
make sure that we are keeping it within their housing
allowance, because they are already spending between 15 and 20
percent out of pocket, and we do not want to increase that. So
our contracts will ensure that their housing allowances will
take care of utilities in the privatization market.
We are also looking at whether we should lease the land or
if we should convey it, whether it is on base or off base, and
to that end, we are in the process of developing a family
housing master plan.
We are going to continue to move slowly on this, because we
want to make sure we do it right. We want the housing to be
there. This gives us the opportunity to provide housing today
when people need it rather than postpone it until tomorrow, but
at the same time we want to be able to make sure that the
housing we developed for our people will meet their needs and
will not cost them a lot of extra money, and will continue to
meet the quality that we think our people deserve.
ONE-PLUS-ONE
Senator Burns. Tell me about one-plus-one.
Ms. Demesme. One-plus-one is very important, sir. We highly
endorse it. I listened to your earlier talk about being in the
Army. I was not in the Army, and the Marine Corps is only
looking for a few good men, but I did go to college, and I can
recall in my college dormitory, I had a room with four people
with a central latrine.
I could not have anybody in my room. If I wanted to study I
had to go someplace else. If I wanted to take a bath, I was not
always able to do so. We all had the same daytime duty, to go
to school, so we did not have the shift work. So when I think
about our young people, I realize----
Senator Burns. Well, we did, but we did not write about it.
Ms. Demesme. We did, but we accepted what we had to at that
time.
Senator Burns. That is right.
Ms. Demesme. But the difference was, I had a place to go
home to. I could go home to my family during holidays and
summers, that was just the place that I was going to school.
With our young men and women, this is their home, this is where
they work, this is where they sleep. They need their privacy.
They need their ability to get up tomorrow and go out on that
tarmac and turn the wrenches on the planes.
They need to be able to forecast weather, and all those
things that require concentration, where they need to have the
ability to think and to just be by themselves once in a while
if that is what they need, but it does not take away from their
integrity, because the living units are still in the buildings
together, and they will still be training together, they will
still be doing teamwork in lots of areas.
I think privacy is the number one issue for our young men
and women. It is not that they are going to college, and they
are going to go out later on and have fun, this is a real life-
and-death situation, and I think it is important that they have
a safe place to sleep.
Senator Burns. You have a master plan on----
Ms. Demesme. We have a master plan. First, we focused on
getting rid of our gang latrine. We have done that a little
ahead of schedule. Next, we are implementing new assignment
standards that govern how we use our existing dormitories. Over
the next three years, fiscal years 2000 to 2002, we intend to
provide private sleeping rooms to our current dormitory
occupants, wherever possible. We will continue buying out our
room deficit through fiscal year 2009 according to the master
plan.
That will be our own base capability and sometimes we are
going to be leasing or having people move off base, and by 2009
we hope to have completed our master dormitory project. We are
on track, we are doing well, and it means a lot to our men and
women.
Senator Burns. I know we have talked and, of course, I am
very much concerned about, as I said, with the Army, we are
going to stop building NCO dormitories. We visited with, I
think they were all probably majors and below in the Middle
East, and Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and I were out
there.
What struck me, there were two young women, one was a staff
sergeant and one was a tech sergeant, and they are leaving the
Air Force, and that concerns me a lot. They were very bright
young women, and they were technicians on the AWACS, skilled
positions.
We just absolutely have to retain those people, if we
possibly can. They are the best we have. That was kind of a--
the living conditions there--and this was their tenth or
eleventh trip over there since 1991. So that concerns me a lot.
I do not have any other questions other than I think your
approach is correct, and I want to thank you for the visit. It
was a very good visit. I enjoyed that a lot. We are going to
visit some more on this privatization thing, and I do not know
which direction you-all are going in the Air Force, and we do
not have all of our allocations yet, and as soon as we get our
allocations, we will come down and be in very close
consultation with you, and work with you as we work through
some of those problems in the appropriations.
Ms. Demesme. Well, we appreciate your support. We look
forward to working with you. If we can assist in any way, if
you are visiting different locations, or need timely
information, please let us know.
Senator Burns. Well, I have a couple of trips to make, and
look forward to those. I like a working relationship, and that
is the most important thing.
Ms. Demesme. This is General Lupia's last appearance.
Senator Burns. Really?
General Lupia. Yes, sir.
Ms. Demesme. He is thinking about retiring. I am not sure
if we can allow that to happen.
Senator Burns. We are not going to let you out. We need to
retain generals, too, you know. [Laughter.]
MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE
General Lupia. Sir, I have been at this for 32 years, and I
think it is time to give somebody else a chance. I told you I
was not going to retire until we got the Malmstrom Air Force
Base Red Horse Unit stood up.
Senator Burns. I have to tell you, that has been a pretty
nice success story out there. We are using some reserve and----
General Lupia. Guardsmen.
Senator Burns [continuing]. And guardsmen, along with
regulars.
General Lupia. Yes, sir. We reached full operating
capability last October 1st, as we said we would. We had 200
members of the squadron deployed for the first real genuine
deployment down to Guatemala, to help with the recovery of
Hurricane Mitch, and I am happy to tell you that our active
guardsmen, 200 of them, guys and gals, have now come back.
Today another group of guardsmen from Montana have returned to
Guatemala to continue helping restore critical systems and
utilities.
They asked me today while I was here, if I would get a
chance to see you, and I said it is for sure I will get a
chance to see you, if I could present you with one of their
819th squadron coins. It says on the back, ``A horse with
wings, unity, teamwork, and commitment.'' So on behalf of the
members of the 819th, I would like to present this.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. Tell them thank you. I
am pretty proud of them out there, because that was kind of an
experiment----
General Lupia. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns [continuing]. To see if we could integrate
those two sections, and it has been--I hope it has been fairly
successful anyway.
General Lupia. A big success.
Senator Burns. I do not know all the ins and outs about
it----
General Lupia. A big success, sir.
Senator Burns [continuing]. But it has the appearance of a
lot of success, and we want to continue to do those things. I
am sure that Senator Murray will have some questions, and if
you could respond to her and the committee, we would deeply
appreciate it. She is down at the White House, and they are
talking Kosovo, and I certainly understand that.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We appreciate your patience, and coming before the
committee, and we look forward to working with you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Ms. DeMesme
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
funding levels
Question. There has been a steady decline in Military Construction
funding within DOD. This year the Department migrated $3.1 billion from
the MILCON bill to replenish personnel and readiness accounts within
the Department. DOD did not cut any military construction projects as a
result of this reduction. Rather they requested only a small down
payment on each project, and spread the funding over two years.
This decline will result in gradual erosion in the ability of the
Air Force to adequately maintain and replace their base infrastructure,
as well as protect quality of life initiatives.
The fiscal year 2000 Air Force budget funds real property
maintenance at the Preservation Maintenance Level which represents the
resources necessary to accomplish periodic maintenance required to
sustain real property facilities and infrastructure. This is one
percent of the current physical plant. This represents almost 80-100
year replacement cycle.
Madame Secretary, I am concerned about the Department's Plan to
Phase Fund Military Construction in fiscal year 2000. I recognize that
their were tremendous fiscal pressures to realign money. However, if
this practice continues into the future, what would be the long-term
implications to your Milcon program?
Answer. Since advance appropriations is proposed as a one-time
action, we are not sure what the long-term implications would be. The
Department and our design/construction agents will have to create new
mechanisms to accurately track project costs over multiple
appropriation years. Right now a project has a single year of
appropriation to track project increases, reprogramming thresholds and
scope adjustments. All of these elements become more difficult to track
and potentially more costly if this practice continues. Any long-term
approach would perpetuate the additional workload needed to develop
award and funding strategies that ensure adequate funding is available
on each project so construction can proceed as necessary to meet need
dates.
Question. If we decide to pursue this strategy of advance
appropriations, will this slow down execution of the projects and
potentially increase their costs?
Answer. Although advance appropriations does not support optimal
program execution, it does not preclude 100 percent execution in the
year of appropriation. We will continue to work award and funding
strategies with our design/construction agents to ensure sufficient
funds are available on each project so construction can proceed as
necessary to meet need dates.
The potential for cost increases can be minimized if Congress
provides full project authorization in the year of appropriation,
changes the reprogramming base from the appropriated to the authorized
amount to enable the transfer of funds between projects in a timely
manner, and advance appropriates the balance of construction funds so
they are available at the start of the next fiscal year.
Question. What does the Air Force spend each year on plant
replacement value on facility maintenance? At this rate, what is the
replacement cycle for infrastructure for each component?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the Air Force is spending one percent
of the plant replacement value in the Operation and Maintenance
appropriation for facility maintenance. At this rate, there is no
recapitalization of facilities.
family housing privatization
Question. Because of the tremendous backlog of new and replacement
family housing construction, the Department of Defense sought new
authorities to use public/private ventures as a housing tool. Under a
five-year test program which expires February 2001, the Air Force can
provide cash, direct loans and loan guarantees, and differential lease
payments. They can also convey land or lease existing land, housing and
facilities to a developer in exchange for renovation or construction or
homes.
The Air Force is cautiously proceeding with family housing
privatization. They have awarded a contract at Lackland AFB, Texas, and
are scheduled to make an award for Robins AFB, Georgia later this year.
There are seven additional projects underway this year. They are
working to streamline the acquisition process to spread the process.
Madame Secretary, would you describe the Air Force approach to
family housing privatization and the projects currently underway?
Answer. The Air Force is using a measured approach to military
family housing privatization during the five year test period that ends
in February, 2001. We will test the range of authorities that are
contained the 1996 legislation. The Air Force is accomplishing housing
privatization through real estate deals using a request for proposal.
The Lackland AFB project for 420 units was awarded August 1998. The
Robins AFB project is currently in the solicitation evaluation stage
with contract award projected for August 1999. The Elmendorf AFB
project solicitation was issued to the public on 25 March 1999. Nine
other initiatives are at various stages of concept development in our
approach towards housing privatization during this five year test
period.
Question. I noticed the Air Force is continuing to budget for
traditional MILCON for family housing. Why have you chosen a
combination of privatization and military construction for family
housing?
Answer. The Air Force sees privatization as a tool, in addition to
MILCON and O&M, to provide quality housing to our service members. The
Air Force is taking a measured approach during the test period of these
privatization authorities. Privatization will be considered where
economically viable and in the best interest of our military families.
Question. I remain concerned that Air Force personnel and their
families may pay more to live in one of these projects than housing
provided through regular MILCON. What assurances can you give me that
they will not have out of pocket expenses?
Answer. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Secretary of
the Air Force have directed that housing privatization initiatives
should not cause service members to pay out of pocket expenses.
Therefore, any housing privatization project that results in out of
pocket expenses for military members will not be implemented.
fort belknap training range
Question. The Montana Air Guard is working a proposal through the
Air Force to create a weapons training range on the Fort Belknap Indian
Reservation. The Montana Air Guard briefed some of Ms. Demesme's staff
on their concept in late February. In order to move this proposal
forward, the Montana Guard must have the approval of the Fort Belknap
Tribal Counsel.
This range will provide the Montana F-16s a bombing range in the
state, rather than having to travel long distances to practice bombing
and air-to-ground gunnery. This will facilitate the Air Guard's shift
in mission from an air defense role to a general-purpose mission.
Receiving Air Force approval for this range is critical for this
concept to move forward.
Madame Secretary, I understand that the Montana Air Guard is
pursuing a concept of a weapons training range in Montana. Does the Air
Force anticipate any problems with this Initiative?
Answer. The Air Force supports the effort to establish a range in
Montana. Currently we do not anticipate any problems with this
initiative
Question. How Will this Range Facilitate Training for the Montana
Air Guard?
Answer: Efforts to establish an air to ground range in Montana are
in the very early conceptual stages. If this range were to be
developed, its close proximity to the Montana Air National Guard
(MTANG) home base would provide greater training opportunities.
Compared to flying to the closest range currently available, our
preliminary analysis shows we could save approximately one hour and
twenty minutes of flying time per training flight. This transit time
could be put to better use accomplishing other required training.
Additionally, the cost savings per year could total $2,600,000.
Question. What is the status and associated time line of this
proposal?
Answer. Since this range concept is in early conceptual stages, no
timelines have been established. If a formal proposal should develop
from this concept, timelines would be established consistent with
standard Air Force directives.
Questions Submitted by Senator Stevens
milcon projects for eielson afb in fiscal year 2000
Question. Madame Secretary, I understand that Eielson AFB has four
major MILCON projects in the fiscal year 2000 budget. It is my
understanding that the two runway projects and the defense fuel project
were linked in order for construction to occur at the same time. What
impact will incremental funding have on the execution of these
projects?
Answer. The Air Force must consider the limited construction season
due to the arctic climate and the need to limit runway closure when
determining the funding required for this project so construction can
proceed as necessary. We will work contract and funding strategies with
our design and construction agents to ensure the potential impact of
advance appropriation on these projects is minimized.
Question. When and for how long do you anticipate the runway will
be closed at Eielson AFB as a result of these projects?
Answer. We anticipate the runway will be closed for approximately
135 days, beginning in May of calendar year 2000.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
total budget
Question. After looking over the numbers for the active Air Force
and subtracting all the ``must-haves,'' it appears you only have $143
million for new construction this year, and will need $471 million in
fiscal year 2001 to meet your total program request. Is $143 million
going to be adequate, particularly if Congress decides this advanced
appropriation formula isn't acceptable? How will you prioritize your
projects?
Answer. If Congress decides advanced appropriation is not
acceptable, $143,000,000 will not be adequate for our major
construction requirements in fiscal year 2000. The Air Force requires
$699,000,000 to execute the fiscal year 2000 MILCON program without
advanced appropriation. The Air Force's major commands submitted
$2,200,000,000 in requirements for fiscal year 2000 including new
mission beddown, operational facilities, control towers and fire
stations, dormitories, infrastructure projects, and quality-of-life
facilities (physical fitness centers, dining facilities, child
development centers, etc.).
A reduction of this magnitude would require a complete reassessment
of the Air Force's most urgent needs.
Question. In your active current mission projects, there are three
required to be done by Congress in fiscal year 2000; (1) the Beale
flightline fire station for $9 million; (2) the McConnell KC-135 squad
ops for $10 million; and (3) Rome lab for $13 million. Will these
requirements of $32 million then reduce the $143 million available for
new projects to $111 million?
Answer. A reduction of this magnitude would require a complete
reassessment of the Air Force's most urgent needs.
Question. I notice that your active quality of life projects total
$140 million this year. Again, given the funding constraints, how will
these projects be prioritized compared to your current mission
requests?
Answer. They will be prioritized very high. However, a reduction of
this magnitude would require a complete reassessment of the Air Force's
most urgent needs.
c-17 globemaster iii--mc chord afb
Question. McChord Air Force Base in Washington State has been
identified as the second operational base for the C-17. In your fiscal
year 2000 budget, there are both Active and Reserve facilities funded
at McChord to address this need ($8 million for squad operations
active, and $3 million for squad ops reserve). My concern is what will
happen to these projects as a result of the incremental funding
proposal. How much do you anticipate will get done this year compared
to next year. What happens if Congress does not approve advance
appropriations? Where are these projects on your priority list?
Answer. As a result of the Department's request for advance
appropriation, we will continue to work award and funding strategies
with our design/construction agents to ensure sufficient funds are
available on each project so construction can proceed as necessary to
meet need dates. Although advance appropriation does not support
optimal program execution, it does not preclude the MILCON projects
from being awarded in fiscal year 2000. The potential for cost
increases and job stoppage can be minimized if Congress provides full
project authorization in the year of appropriation, changes the
reprogramming base from the appropriated to the authorized amount to
enable the transfer of funds between projects in a timely manner, and
advance appropriates the balance of construction funds so they are
available at the start of the next fiscal year. These changes would
help keep the McChord projects on schedule, as if advance appropriation
did not exist.
If Congress decides advance appropriation is not acceptable, the
$213,000,000 of appropriation requested will not be adequate for our
construction requirements in fiscal year 2000. The Air Force requires
$699,000,000 to execute the fiscal year 2000 MILCON program without
advance appropriations.
The Air Force does not have a prioritized listing of projects based
on a $213,000,000 funding level. If advance appropriation is not
approved, a reduction in funding of this magnitude would require a
complete reassessment of the Air Force's most urgent needs.
Question. Will the proposed changes in the force structure of the
Air Force have any impact on Air Force operations and future military
construction requirements in Washington State?
Answer. No. Bases identified in the force structure announcement
have enough infrastructure to support additional personnel and
materiel.
quality of life
Question. Ms. DeMesme, in your testimony you have strong words of
support for the importance of quality of life initiatives. As you may
know, I too am a strong advocate of improving the quality of life for
our troops. When I talk to men and women on our air force
installations, I find it is the little things, like fitness centers,
day care, and quality of housing, that matter the most to them and
invariably affect their decision to stay in the service. Now given the
advanced appropriation situation facing us this year, and given the
very real possibility that this funding proposal will not survive the
appropriations process, how would you prioritize the Air Force's
quality of life initiatives?
Answer. The Air Force's quality of life initiatives will remain a
very high priority. However, a reduction of this magnitude would
require a complete reassessment of the Air Force's most urgent needs in
the MILCON arena.
______
Questions Submitted to General Lupia
Questions Submitted by Senator Murray
housing
Question. General Lupia, we understand that it is more cost-
effective for the Air Force when enlisted men and women live on base as
opposed to off base. Is the Air Force taking any steps toward either
reducing this extra expense for living off base or toward promoting on-
base housing? What impact do you think the uncertainty surrounding the
incremental funding proposal will have on your effort to reduce housing
costs?
Answer. Actually, it is more cost effective for the Air Force when
enlisted men and women live off-base. This fact has been documented in
General Accounting Office and Congressional Budget Office reports. For
this reason, OSD has a policy that communities near military
installations are relied on as the primary source of housing for DOD
personnel.
The Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization Act initiated housing
allowance reform and established a goal that housing out-of-pocket
expenses should be 15 percent. Currently, service members living off-
base pay on average 20 percent out-of-pocket for housing expenses; some
pay more, some less depending on location. There are two initiatives to
address this problem. First, OSD in January 1998 began implementing a
six- year program to equalize out-of-pocket expense percentages for all
locations to 20 percent. Second, the Air Force is working an initiative
that would accelerate the transition period of the OSD program and
decrease the out-of-pocket expenses to the Congressional target of 15
percent.
Access to safe, affordable housing for our people is a key quality
of life priority. As long as our members continue to experience the
present level of out-of-pocket expenses, we can expect there to be a
high demand for on-base housing, especially from our junior enlisted
airmen. Currently, 47 percent of our E1-E7 Air Force families live in
base housing.
Although advanced appropriations does not support optimal program
execution, it does not preclude 100 percent execution in the year of
appropriation. We will continue to work award and funding strategies to
ensure sufficient funds are available on each project so construction
can proceed as necessary to meet need dates. The potential for cost
increases can be minimized if Congress provides full project
authorization in the year of appropriation, changes the reprogramming
base from the appropriated to the authorized amount to enable the
transfer of funds between projects in a timely manner, and advance
appropriates the balance of construction funds so they are available at
the start of the next fiscal year.
utility privatization
Question. In an effort to meet the requirement by DOD to privatize
all utility systems by 2003, you have programmed 204 systems for
analysis in fiscal year 1999 and the remaining 204 systems for fiscal
year 2000. Is it going to be possible to meet this fiscal year 2000
requirement? What is the status of the 204 systems currently being
evaluated this fiscal year?
Answer. Yes, the Air Force will meet its fiscal year 2000
requirement. Of the 204 systems currently being evaluated during fiscal
year 1999, 85 systems are under analysis. The remaining 119 statements
of work are being developed and will be awarded long before the end of
fiscal year 1999.
unspecified minor construction
Question. I notice your unspecified minor construction amount for
the Air National Guard has decreased by $2.25 million. What is the
reason for this deduction?
Answer. The original Air National Guard request for unspecified
minor construction was reduced by $2,550,000 during the budget cycle
due to under execution of the fiscal year 1998 program. The program
included a joint project for a medical facility at McGuire. The Guard
portion of this Active/Guard/Reserve initiative was $1,500,000. Bids
exceeded the threshold and negotiations were unsuccessful in achieving
an awardable project so it was cancelled late in the year. Two
additional projects were substituted, but their combined cost did not
fully execute the P-341 program leaving an unobligated balance. The
joint medical project at McGuire is still a valid requirement for the
Guard and Reserve and is included in our FYDP.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Ms. Demesme. Thank you very much.
Senator Burns. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., Tuesday, March 23, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE/MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2000
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-192,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman of
the Defense Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens, Domenici, Burns, and Inouye.
Also present: Senator Roberts.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Forward Operating Locations (FOL) for Counterdrug Operations
STATEMENTS OF:
GEN. CHARLES E. WILHELM, COMMANDER IN CHIEF, U.S. SOUTHERN
COMMAND, U.S. MARINE CORPS
HON. WALTER B. SLOCOMBE, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (POLICY)
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Good morning, Mr. Slocombe and General.
This morning we want to hear from you about the establishment
of military operating locations in Latin America. I do want to
thank Senator Burns for joining us, and Senator Roberts.
new Military facilities
This proposal to open up four new military facilities in
Aruba, Curacao, and Costa Rica impacts the work of both
subcommittees, the Defense Subcommittee and Military
Construction Subcommittee, and has implications on future year
funding.
Last month, Senator Inouye and I notified Secretary Cohen
that the Defense Subcommittee was not in a position to approve
the request for $45 million to commence the establishment of
these new bases in operating locations at the time the
Department was seeking the authority to close additional bases
in the United States, and our forces face expanded overseas
contingency deployments.
We believe the committee needed to review the proposal in
greater detail to understand the fiscal and operational
implications. Senator Inouye and I noted in our letter to
Secretary Cohen this subcommittee has consistently increased
fundings available for the defense counterdrug missions over
the levels sought by the President in the budget request.
For the fiscal year 2000, the bill passed by the Senate, we
added $54 million directly for the DOD counterdrug operations.
General Wilhelm, in your testimony you rightly note the Coast
Guard is the lead U.S. agency for drug interdiction. In light
of that role, however, the subcommittee increased defense
funding for the Coast Guard counterdrug operations, adding $200
million to the Coast Guard allocation for the fiscal year 2000.
In the Kosovo emergency supplemental passed in May, the
subcommittee added a further $200 million for 1999 for the
Coast Guard to enhance counterdrug roles. These considerations
led us to seek a better understanding of why new military
facilities were needed overseas at a time when operational
stress is resulting in some of the lowest personnel retention
figures since the establishment of the all-volunteer force.
There is no question that the military has an important
contribution to make in our national effort to stop the flow of
drugs into the United States. The appropriate role for the
military in that effort must take into account other missions
faced by the Armed Services, especially the unprecedented pace
of long-term overseas deployment.
Infrastructure costs
I will defer to Senator Burns, and I am sure Senator Inouye
also, on the implications of the infrastructure costs
associated with the new locations.
For the fiscal year 2000 the Armed Services and
Appropriations Committees of the Senate judged that the
permanent infrastructure costs should be funded through the
military construction budget rather than through the defense
appropriations bills as sought in the budget. This hearing
affords both subcommittees the benefit of your views on the
matter as we proceed to act on reprogramming requests that are
still pending and the funding sought for fiscal year 2000.
Both of your prepared statements will be inserted into the
record in full. I want to turn to my colleague, Senator Inouye,
and then if Senator Burns does not mind, Senator Roberts is in
the chair at 10:30, and I want to see if he has any comments
before he leaves.
statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary and
General Wilhelm, we appreciate your presence here this morning.
No one questions the importance of the counterdrug mission,
and I do not believe that that is an issue here this morning.
What is at issue is how the Department of Defense interprets
its authority to conduct overseas operations in advance of
receiving congressional approval.
Also, the subcommittee needs to understand what the impact
of establishing four new temporary overseas facilities will
have on family separations, readiness, retention, et cetera,
and there are questions regarding how long we will be operating
from these new bases.
DOD keeps insisting that we need to reduce infrastructure
to consolidate bases here in the United States, but with this
plan we see the possibility of establishing new overseas
locations that will be manned by U.S. military personnel.
These are some of the questions that many of us have, and
why our chairman has called this hearing, and so we look
forward to your testimony to explain this approach.
I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Senator. Senator Burns, do you
object to turning to Senator Roberts?
Senator Burns. No.
Senator Stevens. Senator Roberts.
statement of Hon. Pat Roberts
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
your indulgence. I thank my colleague from Montana for his
patience. I plan to maintain my status as an honorary member--
that is not ornery member, that is honorary member--of the
Appropriations Committee. I am on good behavior, sir, and will
make my remarks as short as I possibly can.
Emerging threats
I am chairman of a new subcommittee on the Armed Services
Committee called Emerging Threats and Capabilities. We have an
obligation to take a look at the emerging threats that we think
are of vital interest to our national security. We have had six
hearings. Most of those hearings dealt with weapons of mass
destruction, cyber threats--that is, information warfare--
terrorism, and down on the list, and I do not mean that in
terms of priority, but also down on the list is the problem of
drugs.
I was invited by General Wilhelm to come to the Southern
Command. I went down and talked to General Wilhelm at length,
and I must say that I had my eyes opened. My horizon was
broadened, because I think in terms of the Southern Command and
what is entailed in 32 nations down there, 360 million people,
and the stakes involved, that it is terribly, terribly
important.
When I became the chairman of the Emerging Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee, I tried to make a concerted effort
in the hearings that we held to the future and the security
environment, rather than that of the past. One of the
conclusions we reached is that Latin America will either be a
source of great strength for the United States or it will be a
principal weakness, and we want to make sure that it is a
strength.
Now, what am I talking about? What are the stakes? In my
prepared remarks I go into the energy situation, the Panama
Canal, our trade interest compared to other theaters, to the
regional threats in regards to a very fragile area in regards
to democracy and the terrorism problem, also the drug problems,
the corruption problem, narcotrafficking, but I just made a
list this morning.
We do not want to reverse the success that we have had in
the eighties in this region, Mr. Chairman. Thirty-one out of
thirty-two nations now have democracy in this very crucial part
of the world. It is a tremendous success story. I do not know
of too many people who have really written the history of what
we went through in the eighties and where we are today.
Three hundred sixty million people, average age about 17,
18 years old, a lot of very crucial needs. With 31 out of 32
nations now having democracy, obviously the only one remaining
is Cuba.
There could be a threat to our Nation's oil supply.
Venezuela does supply approximately 18 percent of our oil
supply. With a situation in Colombia and unrest there and
rebels dedicated to interests that are not in our vital
interest, that could be a real problem, and so consequently I
do not think we want to see gas lines and oil price inflation.
That is a situation that could occur.
This is a situation where we must maintain a presence
because of our world's leading trading partners, Mr. Chairman.
I was over in Brussels talking with the European Union, trying
to get some progress in regards to the World Trade Organization
talks. I must tell you that I do not think the potential or the
prospects for trade in that part of the world are very good.
Food safety
We have a food safety situation over in Europe, where sound
science is being tossed out the window. Eighty-five percent of
the subsidies paid on agriculture today come from the European
Union. Where must we look? We must look south.
Again, 360 million people who need a good, nutritious diet.
We can export those bulk commodities. The Appropriations
Committee will be considering on down the road an emergency
bill in regards to agriculture probably totalling $5, $6, $7,
$8 billion. If we had fast track now in place, and we were in a
competitive situation with our competitors overseas, the
Southern Command, the southern area is where we should go.
It has a lot of ramifications for the Kansas wheat farmer
out there now, saying I get $2 a bushel for my wheat. That is
the kind of individual relationship that we have with our
constituents in regards to their economic livelihood.
We are going to have a hearing on down the road in the
Emerging Threats Subcommittee on the weapons of mass
destruction. John Deutch is in charge of a commission. There
has been some press about it. We are going to have him in there
for a hearing.
I asked General Schumacher what would be the easiest way to
introduce a weapon of mass destruction and nuclear device into
this country. Guess what, in a shipment of cocaine. That would
be the easiest way to get it into this country, and so in terms
of our vital national interest in that kind of a threat, why,
this region is all-important.
I know the General will mention that we are into a culture
of the Americas and not an American culture any more. I know
the General will mention the problems with immigration, the
fact that by 2010 the Hispanic Americans will represent the
largest minority population of the United States.
Forward operating locations
I think with some kind of presence, Mr. Chairman, whether
it's the forward operating locations--I will go out on a limb.
I think the situation with Howard Air Force Base was a mistake.
I think we ought to have some kind of a lease-back arrangement.
I know that is probably not possible, and I am not sure what
kind of format it will take with the forward-operating
locations, but I will tell you, sir, that I think that on a
cost basis we could do it about half the cost in regards to the
cost of Howard.
So how that works out, obviously, sir, that is your
responsibility, that of the Department of Defense. I just
wanted to go on record in saying that as chairman of the
Emerging Threats Subcommittee, strategically, geopolitically,
with a whole range of issues, this part of the world is
extremely important.
We have had a success story, but the history of foreign
policy and involvement in that part of the world is that when
we have success we tend to draw back, and then we get into real
problems.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to come before the committee. I am an admirer of
General Wilhelm. He has certainly opened up my eyes. I would
encourage every member of the committee to go down there to the
Southern Command and let him walk you through some of the
obligations and the missions.
This is just not about drugs. Drugs are very important, but
I think from the standpoint of our strategic interests it is
exceedingly important.
I want to thank the General for the job that he does, and I
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make a
statement.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
General, Senator Roberts demonstrates there is no such
thing as an ex-marine. [Laughter.]
Senator Burns.
statement of Hon. Conrad Burns
Senator Burns. I would concur with that. There are only
farmers and whatever. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for holding these hearings.
North American Free Trade Agreement
I also want to footnote on what Senator Roberts has just
revealed to us as far as not only from a drug interdiction and
security in the area, from the trade point of view also. There
is a great success story down there, and the European Union has
made overtures already to include South America in their plans
of an extended, what we call our North American Free Trade
Agreement. We have been trying to expand, so there is much more
at stake here than just military security and drug
interdiction.
There is a possibility and a future of an extended
relationship in the Americas that I think will be very
beneficial to everybody that lives here both in North America
and in South America.
My questioning will go along the lines of what we have in
existence there as far as facilities are concerned. Also the
requests that have been made here through military
construction, because any time we have any expansion we are
dealing with a finite amount of money that is being stretched
almost to the breaking point. Mr. Chairman, as you know, you
have wrestled in your full committee with all of these
appropriations, and you know how we have to set our priorities
on where we can get the best, where they should be used.
We did not really know about this until we had already
marked up our bill this year. The administration made no
revelation to us the amount of money that they were going to
request to construct facilities for the fiscal year 2000
budget, and we just found out about it. Now we are trying to
scramble to get our house in order where we may at least
facilitate or help facilitate our presence there and the
mission that we have ahead of us.
The committee did not receive detailed justification for
these projects until June of this year. So we want to better
understand the requirement of these bases as well as the
justification to spend $122 million in these overseas areas,
especially when we have existing bases, and some would judge
might be able to support these missions.
So I look forward to the testimony this morning, and again
I want to thank the chairman for these hearings.
Senator Stevens. Senator Domenici, do you want to make a
statement?
Senator Domenici. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Reprogramming
Senator Stevens. Mr. Slocombe and General, I just want to
relate two things to you. First, this reprogramming was from
operating funds to military construction, and we did not
approve it partially for that reason, and second, when we went
to Kuwait and visited with General Pate after the President
increased the deployment to Kuwait, I inquired where the money
came from, and how we started this base that was there. That
was not an air base. It was Army, as I recall, and General Pate
told me he was building a base for 50 years.
When we looked at King Sultan Airfield, which until Aviano
was the largest Air Force base for our military, it was never
really a subject of an authorization. I was told that when we
appropriated funds for the account which had been mentioned in
the statement that would be a field there to replace after the
Khobar Towers, as I recall, in Iran, and the problem of Iran.
It was viewed as an implicit approval of the new bases that
were to be established.
Now, I just do not want to see a situation where we
implicitly are approving bases, and I hope that the Congress
will agree with us on that. As I said in my statement, the
issue before us is not your judgment about whether they should
be there.
The issue really is, what is the deterrent today to the
reenlistment of our people? Only 29 percent of our pilots who
are up for retention reenlisted this last year, and I believe
that is the result of extensive overseas deployments and
unaccompanied tours.
I hope you will tell us, will these be unaccompanied tours,
and how long will these tours be, and are we setting up three
more bases that will take people away from their families for
4, 5, 6 months of a year and lead to further problems as far as
retention is concerned?
Mr. Slocombe, who wishes to go first?
Mr. Slocombe. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I suggest
that General Wilhelm go first to outline the details of the
proposal and its relation to both our counterdrug effort and
our broader interest, and then I will have a short summary of
my statement afterwards.
Senator Stevens. General.
statement of Gen. Charles E. Wilhelm
General Wilhelm. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
committees, I welcome this opportunity to appear before you
this morning to discuss and testify about what I consider to be
the single most important issues that confronts United States
Southern Command today.
Mr. Chairman, I took notes during the very powerful and
direct opening statements which you made and the members of the
committee made, and I have made some notes to myself prior to
coming in here this morning as to some points that I might
raise in my opening statement.
I certainly do not want to waste the time of the committee,
and I think that you have defined very clearly the path you
would like for this testimony to take, so I am going to pick my
way through my notes and try to really just hit those points
that are of concern to the committee.
Post Panama theater architecture
As we withdraw our forces from Panama, as we must under the
provisions of the 1977 treaties, reestablishing the United
States Southern Command theater architecture in a way that will
enable us to perform our missions in the 21st century has
become for me the single most important task that I will
perform during my tenure in command, and I have made that
statement to Secretary Cohen, and he has agreed with the
direction that I have decided to go.
I will tell you it has been a difficult task. It has been
made more difficult by the very short time that has been
available to make these arrangements.
To be very honest, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, when I assumed command at Southern Command in
September 1997, I did so with about a 99 percent expectation
that we would succeed in our negotiations with Panama for the
creation of a multinational counterdrug center there and as a
part of that I really contemplated a residual presence of about
2,500 to 3,500 U.S. personnel to do many of the things that we
need to do in the region to preserve the financial and other
equities that members of the committee have already mentioned.
As I mentioned, we have done pretty well. In my formal
statement I have given you a brief recap of where we are in our
repositioning and relocation efforts. With the help of this
committee, with the help of some of your staffers--Mr. Cortese,
Ms. Ashworth are here today. They have been very helpful with
the things that we have done on Puerto Rico, which has really
in a great many ways assumed the role that Panama did in the
past.
This morning, as I see it, we have got one major task that
remains to be performed, and that is to identify a network of
forward operating locations that will enable us to perform the
missions that we previously performed from Howard Air Force
Base in Panama, and I would hasten to add that as important as
it is, the counterdrug mission is only a portion of this.
Senator Roberts in his statements made some comments about
the growth of democracy in this region, the fact that 31 out of
32 countries are now ruled and governed by people who are in
office based on the wishes of the populace, and these countries
have free market economies, and I think all members of the
committee are aware of the directions that our financial
dealings with this part of the world have taken since 1990.
Our exports to Latin America have more than doubled, as I
have mentioned in other statements. Today we do more business
with Chile, a country of 14.5 million people, than we do with
India, with 952 million. We do more business with either Mexico
or Brazil than we do with China, with 1.3 billion, and the list
goes on.
Forward operating location
I believe that the forward operating location concept that
we have developed provides an efficient and a very cost-
effective way to perform the missions that we previously
performed from Howard Air Force Base. Just to very quickly
review the bidding on the cost, the numbers cited by the
chairman are precisely correct.
In fiscal years 2000 and 2001, we have a requirement for a
total of $122.5 million, not to build bases, but simply to
improve existing facilities in Ecuador, in Curacao, and Aruba,
and to bring them to a state where they meet safety and
operating standards that are acceptable to the United States
Air Force and the U.S. Customs Service.
I really need to make that distinction. We are not
intending to build bases, simply to improve the operating
conditions at these existing host nation facilities which we
have negotiated access to and that will permit us to carry out
important counterdrug and other engagement missions.
I have taken a little bit longer-term view of this, and I
think it is important that we put these outlays into a
meaningful context. The cost of annual operations at Howard Air
Force Base was $75.8 million. After we complete these upgrades
that I have mentioned, we estimate that the annual operating
cost for the forward operating locations will range somewhere
between about $14 to $18 million, and so if we look at this
over a 10-year operating horizon, operations from the forward
operating locations will actually cost only 40 percent of what
we would pay if we continued to conduct these operations from
Howard.
I really think that to fully understand the importance of
the FOL's and to make the important distinction that these are
really a network of facilities, geography is very instructive.
Mr. Chairman, if you do not mind, I would like to refer to a
chart.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T02JY14.000
General Wilhelm. Sir, to walk you through the chart, the
pink circle in the middle depicts the operating range of an E-3
AWACS aircraft operating out of Howard Air Force Base.
Senator Stevens. General, is it possible to turn that
around so people out there can see the same thing and we can
see it, too?
General Wilhelm. Yes, sir, we probably can.
Senator Stevens. We had the charts. They do not have the
charts. If you could just move it around so people out there
can see it, too.
AWACS
General Wilhelm. Again, the circle in the center in pink
depicts the operational reach that an AWACS, an E-3 AWACS
aircraft would have operating from Howard Air Force Base. These
two operating circles here in blue and overlapping in pink
depict the same coverage that we would get from the same
aircraft operating from the forward operating location at
Manta, Ecuador, here to the northeast.
This operating radius depicts the coverage we would get
from the AWACS operating from Curacao or Aruba.
I should make the point that this reflects 2 hours transit
time out to the mission area, 8 hours on station, and 2 hours
back. That is the standard profile for an AWACS mission, and
the range of the arc depicts the range of the radar on the
aircraft itself.
Now, there are some important points to be made here. It
has been suggested that perhaps we could realize significant
savings if we did not operate the full family of detection
monitoring and tracking assets, to include the AWACS from
Manta, Ecuador. I need to draw something on the map, because
this is the most important order that we contend with when we
look at the counterdrug mission and more and more regional
stability, and I will sketch it right on, sir.
This is the border here, between Colombia and Peru. This is
the air bridge that we worked so hard and devoted so many
resources to interdict starting in the earlier part of this
decade, and in my statement I think you saw, if you will pardon
the phrase, the body count that we have achieved on
narcotrafficking aircraft, over 123 aircraft since 1995 shot
down, forced down, seized or confiscated as a result of our air
bridge interdiction operations.
What is important is the operating arc coming out of Aruba
and Curacao does not reach the border between Peru and Ecuador.
We could stand to lose what we worked so hard to gain.
On the positive side, looking at Aruba and Curacao, it does
provide us very favorable coverage over the Eastern and Central
Caribbean. Ecuador is extremely important for two reasons: one,
again, very, very short reach to the Peru-Colombia border, and
it provides us excellent coverage of this portion of the
Eastern Pacific, which at this point in time has largely been
an open back door, feeding narcotics up toward Mexico through
the Sea of Cortez into Mexico's specific ports and then over
our Southwest border.
And as you know from other testimony by General McCaffrey
and others, 59 percent of the drugs get here over those routes,
so this needs to be considered as a network of facilities which
will provide us the operational reach or coverage that we need
to fully address the challenge.
Now, I have added in this final arc which reflects the
positioning of a Central American forward operating location.
For the purposes of this chart we have placed the center part,
the star over northern Costa Rica, roughly where the Liberia
Air Base is. As to whether or not we can negotiate an FOL
agreement with Costa Rica at this point is perhaps problematic,
but if not Costa Rica, I am very confident that we could
negotiate an access agreement with another country in Central
America.
As you can see, this arc then provides us complete coverage
of all of Central America and the balance of the Eastern
Pacific transit routes headed up toward the coast of Mexico.
I felt it very important to try to put this entire issue
into a geographic context, because I think only when we regard
the FOL's as a network do they really make strategic and
operational sense.
Thank you, sir. I appreciate your patience with the
chartology.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I had a number of
things I was going to say about the nature of the drug threat,
about what it has done and is doing to the societies in our
region, and what it has done to our own society, but as Senator
Inouye stated, you are very much aware of that, so I think it
would not be a good use of the committee's time for me to cover
ground that has already been pretty well trod upon, and so I
would like to terminate my opening statement at this point,
sir, and I look forward to your questions and the questions of
the members of the committee.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, General.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gen. Charles E. Wilhelm
introduction
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committees, I welcome
this opportunity to discuss with you the plans and concepts that will
enable us to sustain a strong Department of Defense contribution to the
crucial struggle against illicit drugs. As we complete the withdrawal
of United States military forces from Panama, the Forward Operating
Locations (FOLS) we are establishing in the Caribbean and Latin America
become a critical means of access to the region, providing the U.S. an
efficient and cost-effective alternative to Howard Air Force Base for
the execution of critical counterdrug missions. Moreover, in addition
to enabling Southern Command to meet its responsibilities under
Presidential Decision Directive 14 (PDD-14) and Goals 4 and 5 of the
U.S. National Drug Control Strategy, the FOLs will emerge as a vital
component of our cooperative regional engagement strategy.
Over the last two decades, regional stability has been a key
element in fostering economic growth and democratization throughout the
Caribbean and Latin America. However, drug trafficking and its
relationship with organized crime are seriously threatening the
hemisphere's potential to achieve long-term stability, peace, and
economic prosperity.
The complete withdrawal of United States forces from Panama is
challenging our ability to sustain necessary levels of effort in
countering this threat. Up until now, DOD and other interagency
organizations provided the majority of support in the fight against the
illegal drug trade from U.S. military facilities in Panama. To offset
the loss of basing rights in Panama, we are aggressively executing a
plan to realign and rebalance the theater architecture to sustain
counterdrug efforts in support of PDD-14 and The National Drug Control
Strategy. An interlocking network of FOLs is an essential element of
this new architecture.
In this statement I will present my assessment of this region's
importance to the United States, followed by an overview of the
transnational threats that jeopardize our regional interests. I will
conclude with a discussion of the FOL concept, the FOLs themselves and
the absolutely pivotal role they will play in our regional engagement
and counterdrug strategies.
the importance of the region
Growing economic interdependence and the wave of democratic reform
that has swept over this region, as well as shifting cultural and
demographic trends have significantly elevated the importance of the
Caribbean and Latin America to the United States.
Latin America is our fastest growing export market. Today, 44 cents
of every dollar that the 411 million inhabitants of the region spend on
imports are for goods and services from the United States. Statistics
can be instructive. It is meaningful to note that our annual trade with
Chile, a nation of 14.5 million people, exceeds our trade with India
with a population of 952 million. With almost 1.3 billion inhabitants,
China is the most populous nation on the earth, yet we do more business
with our 98 million next-door-neighbors in Mexico. By 2010, trade with
Latin America is expected to exceed trade with Europe and Japan
combined, and if the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) initiative
is in place by 2005, we can expect to see additional growth in
hemispheric economic interdependence.
The influence of Latin America is also reshaping America's cultural
and demographic landscapes. What was once an ``American Culture'' is
rapidly becoming a ``Culture of the Americas.'' Today, the United
States is the fifth largest Spanish speaking country in the world. By
2010 Hispanics will become our largest minority population and by the
mid-point of the 21st century demographers project that 100 million
U.S. citizens will be of Hispanic descent.
Along with these trends, the dramatic expansion of democracy and
resolution of intra-regional disputes and rivalries provides visible
evidence of a hemisphere that has taken important first steps toward
the achievement of long term peace and stability, at least at the
state-to-state level. In the last twenty years, the paradigm of coups,
military dictatorships, communist-inspired insurgencies, border
disputes, and economic crises has gradually given way to elected
governments and militaries that are subordinate to civilian leadership
and support democratic processes. These are nations that are resolving
disputes without resorting to the use of force. As an example, last
October, we witnessed a watershed event--the resolution of Peru and
Ecuador's longstanding border dispute with the historic signing of a
peace agreement between the two countries.
Viewed through the prism of the national security strategy of
engagement and enlargement there is no better success story for U.S.
Foreign policy. On the other hand, history has demonstrated that
success is many times harder to sustain than failure is to fix, and
these positive trends must be nurtured, encouraged and reinforced.
the threat
Despite positive cultural, economic, and political developments,
there is a pervasive sense of unease in the region regarding security
issues. Our enemies are not well known, our challenges are unclear,
dangers are not always obvious and responses are frequently difficult
to formulate. It has been suggested that uncertainty is the norm and
apprehension the mood. Some of the region's democracies remain fragile;
facing economic adversity, rapid population growth, and proliferating
transnational threats. Out of area powers have shown increased interest
in our next-door neighbors. Under these circumstances it is reasonable
to anticipate setbacks, particularly when fledgling democracies are
confronted with chronic corruption, narco-financed insurgencies, and
deeply rooted organized crime. United States presence within the
hemisphere demonstrates our commitment to the region, prevents the
creation of a security void, and provides engagement opportunities to
counter emerging threats to regional security and prosperity.
Today, I believe the primary threat to the region can be summed-up
in a single word--corruption. Corruption in all its forms eats at and
stunts the growth of young democracies. In Latin America, at the heart
of most forms of corruption are the corrosive effects of the drug
trade. Drugs and the people who grow, produce and sell them, are
aggressively challenging the ability of many governments to provide
long-term stability and economic prosperity. Illegal drugs are killing
and sickening the people, sapping productivity, draining economies,
threatening the environment, and undermining democratic institutions.
We are not immune to these problems--far from it. In the United States
in 1996 alone, drugs and drug related illness and violence claimed the
lives of 14,843 Americans. In an historic context that equates to 88
percent of our losses in the Korean Conflict! Each year, illegal drugs
send a half million Americans to emergency rooms, turn our urban
neighborhoods into battle grounds, and for many of our youth turn the
American dream into an American nightmare. No nation, not even one as
powerful as ours can afford such devastating social, health and
criminal consequences. Because this tragedy has been with us for years,
and because it kills and disables our citizens one at a time, I
sometimes fear that we've developed a tolerance for it. If we
experienced these kinds of losses in a day, a week or even a month,
they would simply not be tolerated. By my definition, illegal drugs are
a ``weapon of mass destruction,'' and should be treated as such.
The countries of the Caribbean and Latin America have grown to
accept and understand the drug threat as a shared challenge and they
are now more ready than ever to join us in the fight. However, they
need our help and encouragement for the long struggle ahead. SOUTHCOM
and DOD play a supporting role in this fight through both theater
engagement and counterdrug operations. Presidential Decision Directive
14 and goals 4 and 5 of the National Drug Control Strategy provide the
foundations for Southern Command's counter-drug campaign.
forward operating locations
An adequate operational presence in our theater of operations is
absolutely essential for the full and successful implementation of our
counterdrug and regional engagement missions. While executing our
counterdrug campaign plan, forces strategically placed in the theater
give us flexibility and allow us to be proactive rather than reactive
in confronting narcotraffickers. Our goal is to force them into a
defensive posture. The past two years have witnessed significant
reductions in coca cultivation in Peru and Bolivia. During the past
year alone cultivation has been reduced by 26 percent in Peru and 17
percent in Bolivia, while production of coca base has been reduced by
about 25 percent in both countries. These successes are attributable to
a combination of effective host country eradication and alternative
development programs and aggressive U.S. and host country efforts to
interdict the air bridge that previously linked cultivation sites in
Peru and Bolivia with processing and production laboratories in
Colombia.
The Air Bridge Denial Program has employed forward-deployed U.S.
aircraft to provide intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance,
airborne early warning, and tracking support to host nation forces.
Last year, with U.S. support, host nation interceptors shot down,
forced down, seized or destroyed 26 narcotrafficking aircraft, bringing
the total to 123 narcotrafficking aircraft taken out of action since
1995.
As a result, we have observed a shift in trafficking patterns. The
cost of cocaine base in Peru and Bolivia plummeted to unprofitable
levels as pilot fees skyrocketed. As a consequence, more illegal drug
shipments were diverted to the rivers. To compensate for setbacks in
Peru and Bolivia, Narcotraffickers increased their cultivation of coca
by 28 percent in Colombia and further streamlined their operations by
consolidating cultivation and production. We are now supporting efforts
by Colombia and its neighbors to effectively counter these revised
trafficking patterns.
Continued forward presence by our forces is mandatory if we are to
sustain the progress that has been made. The combination of U.S.
detection, monitoring and tracking aircraft and host country
interceptors has proven to be an effective team; one that strikes an
appropriate balance between U.S. and host nation capabilities and roles
in pursuit of end games. Continued forward presence under the FOL
concept will enable us to continue this support, and provides an
efficient and cost-effective alternative to the permanent bases that we
previously occupied.
alternatives to panama
Historically, DOD support for source zone countries has been
provided from military facilities in Panama--over 2,000 counterdrug
flights per year originated from Howard Air Force Base. From Panama, we
also supported transit zone interdiction operations, pier-side boarding
and searches, and training for U.S. and host country counterdrug units.
The Panama Canal Treaties of 1977 mandate a complete withdrawal of
U.S. Military Forces not later than December 31, 1999. The departure of
forces does not, however, alter Southern Command's mission
responsibilities or requirements. When negotiations with Panama for a
Post-1999 presence were terminated, Southern Command conducted a
strategic analysis and determined that a series of Forward Operating
Locations (FOLs) would be necessary to provide the capabilities
required to achieve our counterdrug mission objectives.
FOLs have become an integral part of SOUTHCOM's theater
architecture for the next century. While they will allow us to remain
fully engaged in the multilateral effort to combat narcotrafficking,
they are not bases to be constructed at U.S. expense nor are they
intended to replace Howard Air Force Base. Rather, FOLs are intended to
replace the counterdrug operational capability that was provided by
Howard Air Force Base without incurring the expense of base
construction and at reduced annual operating cost. In simple terms,
FOLs are agreements between the United States Government and Host
Nations whereby the United States will be granted access to existing
facilities that are owned and operated by the host nation. These sites
will provide a 24-hour, seven-day per week, operational capability.
U.S. Aircraft will rotate in and out of FOLs as mission needs dictate.
Each site must be night and all weather capable with an air traffic
control facility, an 8,000-foot runway with the capability to support
small, medium and heavy aircraft. Each FOL must also have refueling and
crash/fire rescue capabilities and minimum ramp, hangar, office,
maintenance, and storage space.
Numbers of support personnel will vary depending on numbers and
types of aircraft deployed and the availability of host nation support.
We envision a requirement for 8-12 permanently assigned personnel at
each FOL. Depending on mission requirements, FOLs will be required to
support as many as 200 temporarily deployed personnel.
Three FOLs are needed to maintain the optempo and area coverage
that we previously enjoyed from Howard AFB; one in South America for
source zone operations, and one each in the Caribbean and Central
America to support transit zone and northern source zone operations.
Three FOLs also provide the flexibility that is necessary to contend
with weather patterns and changes in trafficking routes. Initial access
agreements have been negotiated and operations are currently underway
from FOLs in the Caribbean and South America. Site surveys at each
location have identified improvements that are needed to support full-
scale operations and to upgrade host nation facilities to U.S. safety
and operational standards.
In close consultation with host nations, we have devised a three-
phase program for FOL development. Phase one, which commenced on 1 May,
coinciding with the termination of flight operations from Howard Air
Force Base, consists of what we have termed ``expeditionary
operations.'' This entails use of facilities in ``as is'' condition.
Phase one operations are in progress at Curacao, Aruba and Manta,
Ecuador, albeit at reduced operational tempo. The second phase will
begin in fiscal year 2000 with the initiation of MILCON projects that
will increase the operating capacities of the FOLs and bring them up to
U.S. standards. During the third phase in fiscal year 2001, MILCON
projects will be completed and we will attain full operational capacity
and capabilities. At the end of phase three we will achieve operational
reach or area coverage that will equal or exceed that which we had from
Howard at roughly 25 percent of annual recurring operating costs.
manta, ecuador
The FOL at Manta is critical for adequate support of operations in
the crucial source zone. Operations are now underway from Eloy Alfaro
International Airport in Manta. This site allows forward-deployed
intelligence, surveillance, and airborne early warning aircraft to
monitor key narcotics trafficking routes deep in the source zone and
over the Eastern Pacific--a pipeline that feeds Mexico, and ultimately
the U.S.
The USAF, as DOD executive agent for this FOL, recently sent a Site
Activation Task Force to survey Manta facilities. The team concluded
that the runway was suitable for most counterdrug aircraft but would
require upgrades to accommodate AWACS, a critical asset for execution
of our source zone strategy. The task force also recommended
construction of various maintenance and other support facilities.
Ecuador has been an eager and gracious host. The local Air Force
commander has worked tirelessly to correct deficiencies at the airfield
and to provide the safest possible operating environment.
The footprint at Manta is expected to consist of five to eight
aircraft and six to eight permanently assigned staff personnel. As
previously discussed, when full capabilities are attained, the numbers
of DOD and interagency personnel temporarily assigned to Manta will
fluctuate based on missions and numbers and types of aircraft deployed.
aruba and curacao
The airfields on the islands of Curacao and Aruba are approximately
45 miles apart; therefore, they must be improved and managed
separately. These two airfields are well situated and together they
provide adequate capacity to support operations in the Caribbean
Transit and Northern Source Zones. Operations by DOD and U.S. Customs
Service aircraft have commenced from Hato International Airport in
Curacao and Reina Beatrix International Airport in Aruba under
diplomatic notes negotiated and exchanged with the Kingdom of the
Netherlands. The Site Activation Task Force identified requirements for
improvements to ramps and taxiways at Curacao and Aruba. For longer-
term operations, their report recommends construction of maintenance
and operations facilities at both sites.
The footprint in Curacao is expected to consist of seven to nine
aircraft, 12 to 15 permanently assigned staff personnel and as many as
200-230 temporarily deployed operations and maintenance personnel. In
Aruba, the footprint is expected to consist of four U.S. Customs
aircraft, with approximately 15 permanently assigned staff and 20-25
deployed operations and maintenance personnel. As in the case of Manta,
the numbers at Aruba and Curacao will be small initially and will grow
incrementally as we improve existing facilities to accommodate more
deployed aircraft and personnel.
the cost of doing business
My Air Force Component Commander, Lieutenant General Lansford
Trapp, has visited all three sites and has reviewed the findings of the
Site Activation Task Force. To achieve Southern Command's strategic
goals and to meet requisite safety and operational standards, he
assesses the MILCON requirement to be $122.47 million for Manta,
Curacao and Aruba. For purposes of comparison, our most recent annual
operating costs at Howard Air Force Base were $75.8 million. Once
deficiencies are corrected at the three FOLs, we estimate that annual
operating costs will be in the neighborhood of $14 million to $18
million. Based on 10 years of operations, FOL costs would be
approximately 40 percent of those we would have incurred over the same
period at Howard with permanently assigned forces.
conclusion
The departure of United States military forces from Panama has
created unique and difficult challenges for U.S. Southern Command. In
the space of less than one year we have been required to recraft a
theater architecture that was almost a century old. The end of this
task is in sight. Our Theater Special Operations Command has
successfully displaced its headquarters from Panama and is now
conducting full-scale operations from its new home in Puerto Rico. U.S.
Army South will haul down its colors at Fort Clayton in Panama on the
30th of this month and raise them over a new command post at Fort
Buchanan in Puerto Rico. We have already successfully merged Panama-
based Joint interagency Task Force (JIATF) South with its counterpart
organization JIATF East in Key West. This consolidated organization is
now planning and overseeing execution of counterdrug operations in both
the transit and source zones. With support from the government of
Honduras we have increased our presence at the Soto Cano Air Base
absorbing urgently needed helicopter assets previously based in Panama.
These actions, coupled with the earlier relocation of our Headquarters
from Panama to Miami, have resulted in a leaner United States Southern
Command, but a Southern Command that is nonetheless properly postured
to conduct its regional engagement and counterdrug missions in the 21st
century. The Forward Operating Locations are the final pieces of the
future theater architecture. In this statement I have emphasized how
crucial this final element is, and I am not alone in this assessment.
On June 30th I attended an interagency meeting at the White House.
Included among those present were National Security Advisor Berger,
Office of National Drug Control Policy Director McCaffrey, Assistant
Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Romero, Special Envoy
for Latin America McKay, Commandant of the Coast Guard and United
States Interdiction Coordinator Admiral Loy, representatives from the
Departments of Transportation and Justice and others. We discussed the
FOLs and the requirements for them. There was unanimous support and
universal acknowledgment that the FOLs are essential for the continued
prosecution of an effective supply-side counterdrug campaign. I
concluded my presentation to this interagency gathering with the simple
and direct statement that without the FOLs, United States Southern
Command would be unable to effectively confront the threat postulated
in Presidential Decision Directive 14, and we would be incapable of
carrying out missions in support of goals 4 and 5 of the National Drug
Control Strategy. We at Southern Command are grateful for the support
and encouragement we have received from the Congress as we have gone
about the difficult business of resetting our theater architecture.
Timely implementation of the FOL concept is the final step in this
process. For a modest investment the FOLS will enable us to safely and
efficiently carry out vital missions without the costs and other
encumbrances associated with overseas bases.
statement of Hon. Walter B. Slocombe
Senator Stevens. Mr. Slocombe.
Mr. Slocombe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is as always an
honor to appear before this committee and to address your
concerns and the programs of the Department of Defense,
particularly in this case with regard to Latin America and the
counterdrug effort.
Forward operating locations
General Wilhelm has explained the operational necessity for
the three planned forward operating locations. I would just
like to add a couple of points. Everybody recognizes the
importance of the counterdrug mission, and certainly the
Department of Defense. We recognize and appreciate the
consistent support from this committee and from the Congress as
a whole.
The surveillance and detection in the areas that would be
covered by these aircraft operating out of these locations is a
key part of our overall counterdrug effort, but I want to make
the point that it is a relatively small part, a very small part
of the overall Government effort, which just at the Federal
level alone is something like $17 billion, and quite a small
part even of the Defense Department effort, which is just under
$1 billion annually, about a quarter of that for source zone
operations.
Second, I think General Wilhelm's presentation has
explained the geography, which makes it so clear that it is
essential to have operating locations within the region, and
that it is not practical to conduct these operations from bases
either in the United States or Puerto Rico or Guantanamo, just
because of distance.
There is another consideration, and this goes in a sense to
what Senator Burns and Senator Roberts said. We have a broader
interest in a presence and influence in Latin America. In
particular, a consistent and vigorous U.S. effort to deal with
the transit and source zone problem are essential to our
credibility in getting the countries in the region to take
actions in their own interests and ours, particularly with
respect to their own counterdrug efforts, an area where there
is still a lot to do but where a fair amount of progress has
been made.
Third, I want to underscore the point that we recognize
that this committee has always given especially rigorous
scrutiny to military construction and other capital
expenditures by the U.S. military on facilities overseas. This
is as it should be, not only because we are trying to reduce
the burden of unneeded infrastructure both overseas and in the
United States, but because of the concerns that you, Mr.
Chairman, in particular have raised about our long-term ability
to sustain the level of operations that we now maintain.
As General Wilhelm's statement I think makes clear, these
are not the construction of new bases. To build new bases in
this region to replace Howard would simply dwarf by many times
the amounts of Milcon money we are talking about here. These
are necessary measures on what I think is a pretty austere
basis to bring these facilities up to the standards that we
need to be able to operate from them.
It is an efficient approach. It makes use of existing
foreign airports and foreign facilities. Indeed, one of the
main purposes of the FOL concept is to do this important
mission with the smallest footprint possible. Over the long
run, the forward operating locations will actually cost less
than Howard would have cost had we continued to operate there
and maintain that facility, had we been able to reach agreement
with the Panamanian Government.
And third, we are in this area, as I hope is the case
everywhere, trying to accomplish the mission in a way that is
most efficient not only from the point of view of dollars spent
on military construction and operation, but burden on our
people. General Wilhelm can give the details, but these will be
relatively short tours for the air crew involved. The permanent
presence will be extremely limited, something like a dozen
people at each facility.
As a part of recognizing the many pressures on the budget,
but more important the pressures on our people and on key
assets, we scrub very carefully every request to undertake a
mission like this, and particularly because this is primarily
surveillance aircraft, which are in heavy demand in other
theaters. That is particularly the case here.
reduction in Deployments
We believe we have struck an appropriate balance in
allocating both the available inventory of surveillance
aircraft and the pace at which they operate. As part of this
effort, we are reviewing a number of our current overseas
activities. Secretary Cohen yesterday was in Bosnia and
indicated the very real prospect that we will be able to make
substantial reductions in our deployments and our allies'
deployments there in Bosnia, and we are reviewing both the size
and, indeed, the need to continue our operations in a number of
other areas.
prepared statement
In summary, this is, as the committee--and we fully
understand you know this--this is a very important mission. It
can, under current circumstances, be conducted only from bases,
facilities in the region, and we believe that we have put
forward a proposal which is an efficient and, indeed, an
austere one to get this critical job done at a minimal cost to
the taxpayer and, equally important, at a minimal impact on the
burden on our military service personnel who will have to carry
out the mission.
I look forward to answering the committee's questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Walter Slocombe
Mr. Chairman, as always it is an honor to appear before this
committee to discuss the Department of Defense's role in United States
counterdrug activities, how these activities support our national
security interests, and specifically the importance of Forward
Operating Locations in an environment shaped by our changed
relationship with Panama. I particularly welcome the opportunity to
address these issues with General Wilhelm who, as CINC SOUTHCOM has
personal responsibility for the counterdrug operations at issue. I want
to thank both subcommittees for their support of the counterdrug
program in general. Congressional support enables us to counter some of
the drug threat, which costs our nation over 14,000 lives and billions
of dollars each year.
The Threat
We as a nation face a comprehensive threat from drugs and must, as
a nation, carry out a comprehensive response. Treatment and suppression
of demand are critical elements, and are up to domestic law enforcement
and other agencies. But dealing with the source of drugs must also be a
key element of our effort.
Nearly all the cocaine and most of the heroin consumed in the
United States is produced from crops in Colombia, Bolivia, Peru and
Mexico--the ``source zone.'' Drug traffickers transport the cocaine to
the United States in a multi-step process by air, and over sea and land
through a ``transit zone'' consisting of the Caribbean, Central America
and the waters of the eastern Pacific. Areas through which illegal
drugs flow into the United States and its immediate environs are termed
the ``arrival zone,'' where DOD as well as federal, state and local law
enforcement agencies cooperate to apprehend drug traffickers. While
global seizures of cocaine average 270 metric tons per year, the
current annual production capability of 550-650 metric tons continues
to be sufficient to meet current user demands in the United States,
Europe and South America. The bottom line is that while our progress
has been significant, the threat remains very, very potent.
DOD's Role in Counterdrug Activities
The U.S. Government's role in counterdrug initiatives has evolved
from disparate activities conducted by a various agencies to a unified
mission characterized by joint military and civilian collaboration--a
mission that was established by Congress and which has received
consistent Congressional support. Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act of 1986, which gave the Executive Branch more authority to fight
the tide of illegal drug shipments. Also in 1986, the President issued
National Security Directive 221, which declared drug trafficking to be
a threat to U.S. national security. Two years later, the Congress
enacted another anti-drug abuse act in order to establish a coherent
and comprehensive national policy to unify the efforts of the more than
thirty Federal agencies and numerous state and local agencies engaged
in counterdrug activities. The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1989 proved a watershed for Congressional interest in
counterdrug activities conducted by the U.S. military, assigning
primary responsibility for the detection and monitoring of aerial and
maritime transportation of illegal drugs into the United States to the
Department of Defense.
The National Drug Control Strategy
The 1999 edition of the National Drug Control Strategy embodies the
1989 Act's mandate that the Department take the interagency lead in
drug detection and interdiction. The Strategy states that our domestic
challenge is to reduce illegal drug use while ensuring individual
liberty and the rule of law. Our international challenge is to develop
effective, cooperative programs that respect national sovereignty and
reduce the cultivation, production, trafficking, distribution and use
of illegal drugs while supporting democratic governance and human
rights.
The Strategy highlights the critical need to ``[s]hield America's
air, land and sea frontiers from the drug threat,'' by interdicting the
international flow of drugs in the transit and arrival zones. Yet, even
in 1989, when the Department was first assigned the lead in aerial and
maritime detection and monitoring, we knew that defending Americans
from the influx of drugs in the arrival and transit zones represented
only part of the solution. Going beyond the transit zone and into the
source zones to break foreign and domestic sources of supply was and
remains a key element of our integrated strategy. DOD pursues this
element by working with source zone nations in both civilian and
military capacities to provide intelligence, training and other
building-blocks of national self-sufficiency regarding counterdrug
activities. Under General Wilhelm's leadership, and in concert with the
U.S. embassy country teams, the Southern Command has aggressively
pursued these contacts with cooperative source zone nations.
Consistent with Congressional direction, we have devoted
significant resources to this endeavor, and we believe we have achieved
significant successes. It is the Department's commitment to this
Congressionally-directed mission that brings General Wilhelm and me
before the subcommittees today. Our success to date has depended on
effective aerial surveillance and interdiction of key drug transit
routes. We need to reach beyond the transit routes and deep into the
source zones to continue this fight. Quite simply, from both a military
and policy perspective, we cannot continue to execute this mission that
Congress has given us without the Forward Operating Locations. We must
be able to project our own assets, our own detection and monitoring
resources well into the transit and source zones. Without this ability
to meet the threat where it originates, the Department will not be able
to fully execute the mandate it has been given by Congress. Moreover,
we will not be able to sustain the effort to convince the governments
of producing nations to cooperate in regional, integrated efforts.
Successes
There have been some notable successes. Howard Air Force Base in
Panama provided a key staging area for counterdrug missions into both
the transit and source zones. Among other achievements, this capability
helped U.S. assets support Peruvian interdiction efforts that disrupted
the movement of cocaine base from Peru to Colombia by air. Peru's
airborne interdiction of several dozen drug-trafficking aircraft over a
three-year period resulted in the significant disruption of the
traditional north-south airbridge between Peru and Colombia. As a
result, Peruvian coca cultivation exceeded traffickers' transport
capabilities and drove down coca prices. Depressed coca prices from
1996 to 1998 dramatically reduced coca base production in Peru from
more than 450 metric tons to 240 metric tons annually. In addition,
coca cultivation declined substantially in Bolivia in 1998 as the
result of ground interdiction efforts in the Chapare region and
controls on processing chemicals.
The net impact of these gains was offset by the increased coca
cultivation in Colombia during the same period. Significantly, it is
the Colombian production in particular that can be addressed by U.S.
assets deploying from Forward Operating Locations. We are working with
the Colombians and others in the region to address movement of cocaine
hydrochloride--the ``finished product''--by air from local laboratories
to transshipment points on the north and west coasts of Colombia. It is
from these locations that cocaine is smuggled into Mexico and the
United States. The infrastructure supporting the smuggling of cocaine
by air has been the key to efficient operation of the cocaine industry.
We cannot begin to attack this infrastructure--figuratively and
literally--without the operational flexibility provided by the FOLs. In
particular, the FOL at Manta, Ecuador allows us to reach this
infrastructure deep in the Colombia source zone, Peru, as well as the
increasingly popular eastern Pacific transit zone, although this
facility requires improvements to realize its full potential.
The International Dimension
Regrettably, the option of continued operation from Howard Air
Force Base in Panama is not available. The United States and Panama
discussed at length the possibility of a continued U.S. military
presence beyond the effective date of the Panama Canal Treaty but
agreement was not possible. As a result, counterdrug operations from
Howard Air Force Base ceased as of May 1, 1999.
The importance of the counterdrug operation and the need for a
forward-based U.S. presence to sustain it led SOUTHCOM to develop the
current Forward Operating Location concept. The FOL concept, explained
in detail in General Wilhelm's statement, uses existing airport
facilities owned and operated by host nations that are made available
under bilateral agreements. Indeed, the concept has already proven its
value as U.S. aircraft have continued their detection and monitoring
missions on an interim basis from the newly established Forward
Operating Locations in the Netherlands Antilles/Aruba and from Ecuador.
SOUTHCOM was able to put its FOL contingency plan into effect after
closure of the Howard AFB runway on May 1.
The Department of Defense will spend $247 million in fiscal year
1999 on counterdrug activities in source zone countries this fiscal
year, focusing on cocaine production and movement in Peru and Colombia.
The Department will work with other U.S. agencies to dismantle the
cocaine cartels and the cocaine ``business,'' and with the Peruvian and
Colombian governments to break traffickers' air transit routes. The
concentration of traffickers in this area, and their dependence on air
routes, makes the source zone a special focus of our near-term efforts.
The value of military presence options afforded by FOLs for this
mission, specifically the additional location at Manta, Ecuador, cannot
be overestimated. However, continued detection and monitoring efforts
in the source and transit zones using the FOLs depend on Congressional
support. Funds are needed both for operations and for construction of
minimum essential upgrades to facilities. The inability to reprogram
fiscal year 1999 operating funds, or a shortfall in fiscal year 2000
construction funds, will force us to continue operating the Aruba and
Curacao FOLs on an interim basis, deploying our personnel as
expeditionary units: quality of life and efficiency will suffer
drastically.
On April 16, 1999, the Air Force was designated ``Executive Agent''
for the FOLs. In this capacity, the Air Force will implement necessary
upgrades and maintain the three planned FOLs. The Air Force determined
that a total $122.5 million in MILCON funding is required to augment
existing host-nation FOL facilities during the fiscal year 2000-2001
period. This funding will support upgrades to facilities in Curacao,
Aruba, and Manta so that the Department can continue to execute its
statutorily mandated counterdrug mission.
Conclusion
The Department is firmly committed to meeting the goals of the
National Drug Control Strategy as well as its congressionally-mandated
leadership role in detection and monitoring. The key to continued
effective execution of this mission is the ability to operate in the
source zones. We cannot extend our reach in this manner without the
Forward Operating Location strategy. I join General Wilhelm in urging
your support and we look forward to working with you.
Forward operating locations cost
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Mr. Slocombe and General, our attention was called to an
Inside the Pentagon report on May 27. I am sure you must have
seen it, and the real problem as pointed out in this, in many
ways, and I am quoting, the Manta location alone was found
earlier this year by a site survey to need such substantial
modifications that it may eat up at least twice the $50 million
in funds budgeted to start up the three initial FOL's.
Each of the Caribbean islands was judged by the military
site surveyors to require $50 million in long-term
improvements. Concrete is deteriorating--I am just going down
this--the debris is dangerous, lighting is substandard, the
base has an emergency power supply but it is broken, and cable
is deteriorating. As a result, the United States will have to
build a power base, I guess. Something is missing here. The
base water is not potable. It provides only 50 percent of the
current demand. Air traffic control tower is antiquated.
The Manta airfield, security at the airfield is plentiful.
Wildlife abounds. Bird activity is horrendous. Off-base medical
care substandard, should be avoided. It will take 6 months to
improve the airfield, and office space for military personnel,
and it goes on, is very critical.
But the main point that was raised to me, though, is we
would be replacing Howard, which was an accompanied tour base,
with three forward locations where our people once again will
be deployed without their families, and it just seems to me we
ought to have some review of that.
Now, General, you mentioned the savings over a 10-year
period. I question whether there should be an agreement signed
for 10 years without approval of Congress in any event, but
beyond that, those savings are the savings from not having
families with our people. That is the difference.
As a matter of fact, I think if you put forward, operating
on the FOL's, and if you put the cost of full family
deployment, it would cost more for three bases than it did for
Howard, so are we not redeploying this at the cost of the
burden on our personnel by going to forward locations to
operate without their families year after year after year? Is
that not what this is all about?
General Wilhelm. Senator, I do not think so. I think that
this is a manageable proposition. As Mr. Slocombe mentioned in
his testimony and in his opening statement, our personnel
structure would be quite different. His numbers were correct.
We project about 8 to 12 personnel permanently assigned to each
one of these locations to handle the day-to-day management and
contracting tasks that would be necessary to sustain operations
at the FOL's.
Deployments
The deployments of the aircraft themselves, based on past
patterns, these would not be lengthy deployments. Probably 2
weeks up to 1 month at most. I think the shorter term
deployments are things that most of our men and women in
uniform have become pretty accustomed to. It is the long 4, 6-
month deployments, the remote tours of 1 year, where families
do not accompany their sponsors, that we really fracture the
harmony and the cohesiveness of families.
I personally have lived with these short deployments. Many
of them are simply categorized as necessary training to
maintain either a unit or individual readiness. Senator, very
honestly I believe that is a manageable challenge.
You are quite correct, the principal savings associated
with a forward operating location as opposed to a base is the
lack of a necessity to develop what we call a vertical
infrastructure, schools, child development centers,
commissaries, and PX's. But again, sir, given the short periods
of deployments, I think these are very manageable challenges,
and I think the services can cope with that.
Sir, I did also read with considerable interest the article
that you referred to in Inside the Pentagon. That article was
published before the results of the site activation task forces
were made available to me. Quite frankly, I challenge off most
of that article. I visited Manta last week. The conditions that
are cited in that report are quite frankly significant
exaggerations.
The local base commander, the Ecuadorean base commander has
already corrected many of these shortfalls. In terms of foreign
debris that was on the runways, the vegetation that had grown
up around the runways has been cut back. Many of the
deficiencies on lighting and other issues cited in the report
have already been corrected, not by us but by the Ecuadoreans.
A squadron operations building has already been freed up by
the Ecuadoreans for us. It has been repainted. I toured the
space in its entirety. I visited the Oro Verde Hotel, toured
the entire facility right down to the main air conditioning
unit with the manager of the hotel.
In short, sir, I think that report was misleading, and I
would note that a staff delegation went to Manta. I believe
Senator Grahams' senior staffer was present, I think Ms.
Hatheway, one of Senator DeWine's staffers were present. I
believe the total delegation was about six to eight strong.
They came back to Miami and gave me a completely different
debriefing of what they found. The Customs Service
representative there indicated that the facility was in a far
better state of repair than he had been led to believe, and
they essentially took the same exceptions that I did with the
article that appeared in the Inside the Pentagon. I do not
regard that as a credible piece of journalism.
Mr. Slocombe. Mr. Chairman, could I add one point?
Senator Stevens. My time is up. It is Senator Inouye's
time.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Forward operating locations
Mr. Secretary, you have tried to describe to us the
difference between the forward operating location and a base on
the basis of cost. How long do we plan to operate out of these
temporary locations?
Mr. Slocombe. There is no reason that we could not continue
to operate on this basis for an indefinite period of time. I am
afraid we are going to have the drug problem for a long time. I
think realistically we are going to have to operate from
somewhere in that region for a considerable period.
Senator Inouye. Then it would be appropriate for us to
assume that it would be a long-term presence there, not 10
years, but more than that.
Mr. Slocombe. Even 10 years is a relatively short time,
given the scale and the persistence of this problem. I am
afraid we are going to have to be concerned about the import of
illegal drugs into the United States from Latin America for a
long time.
One of the reasons why this is an attractive approach is
that it means that at least the lower foreign cost of operating
from the foreign bases in the long-term justifies the initial
cost to bring the facilities up to standard.
Senator Inouye. Whatever it is, if we are going to be there
for several decades you will have to appropriate additional
funds to maintain our presence there.
Mr. Slocombe. There is no question we will have to
appropriate funds both to conduct the operations and to
maintain the facilities.
Senator Inouye. In our negotiations with the host nations,
have we set down specific time periods and, if so, what are
they?
Mr. Slocombe. The current arrangements run about 1 year,
and will be renewed, and we look forward to having an agreement
for a long-term presence and long-term use of the facilities.
The precise duration has not been agreed yet.
I have to say, we found both in the case of the Ecuadorean
and the Dutch Government, who have responsibility for Curacao
and Aruba, that they understand the importance of the mission
and have been supportive of the idea of our using the
facilities.
Could I just make one point, going back to the issue--my
understanding is that the crews for the aircraft that did the
surveillance out of Howard often were not personal change of
station (PCS). Their families were often not with them in all
cases. Those are the people who will be going on a temporary
basis to these airfields to operate. The people who are there
on a permanent basis, the dozen or so may well take their
families with them. That is an issue to be worked out.
Senator Inouye. What is the so-called temporary assignment
time period? How long can they expect to be there?
General Wilhelm. Sir, that is a decision that is normally
made by the services. As a practical matter, looking as Mr.
Slocombe mentioned, it was truly the temporary duty (TDY) air
crews that did most of the work out of Howard.
The normal deployments, based on my observations, were
about 2 weeks to 6 weeks, but I would like to run the line on
that, sir, and provide you a precise answer through the
quadrennial defense review (QFR), sir. I will give you a good
profile on exactly what our deployment time lines were for TDY
people to Howard. I think I am probably fairly safe in saying
that I think you would see it parallel at the forward operating
locations. So, sir, if I might, I will get back to you on that.
Senator Inouye. I thank you.
Mr. Secretary, in your statement you note the quality of
life and the efficiency of our forces will ``suffer drastically
if Congress fails to approve your reprogramming request.'' Does
this mean that if Congress denies this request DOD will still
proceed with the establishment of the FOL's anyway?
Mr. Slocombe. No. We will not do what we do not have the
authority and money to do, but we will have to find some other
way to execute the mission.
Senator Inouye. Under what authority would you be operating
these FOL's?
FOL concept
Mr. Slocombe. We believe, and this actually goes back to a
point about the reprogramming. The reprogramming is not for
money for Milcon. It is for funds out of an operating, in
effect a holding account for the counterdrug money to use for
the operations at the FOL's.
We believe we have authority, and it has been the
consistent practice that we can operate on the basis of using a
facility and pay the operating costs out of operating funds.
That is what we are doing now.
We believe that we can make a case and that we are
confident that we will be able to carry forward on the FOL
concept. Just how we would manage if we were not able to do
that, we would have to work with the committee and work with
the Congress and work with the services and the command to
figure out some other way to do it.
I think it would be more expensive in the long run, and it
would almost certainly have a bigger impact on the people.
I am informed that the specific authority for the FOL's and
for the operation is section 1004 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, but in general it is
our authority to conduct these counterdrug operations.
I emphasize the point that the reprogramming has to do with
operating money, and not with Milcon money.
Senator Inouye. General Wilhelm, in your statement you
stated that out of Howard there were 2,000 missions, and out of
these new bases, how many do you anticipate, the same level of
activity?
General Wilhelm. Sir, assuming that we would get roughly
the same commitment of resources, we would hope to achieve
about the same level of activity. That was 2,000 missions out
of Howard each year, and on a normal day we have 21 aircraft of
various types, models, and series committed to the counterdrug
mission.
Yes, sir, I would hope we could maintain a steady state for
resource commitment and could roughly duplicate that tempo of
operations from the forward operating locations.
Senator Inouye. The question that the chairman asked on the
cost difference related to a family accompanying and not, I
hope you can provide that to us, what would be the difference
if families were there.
General Wilhelm. In terms of the cost factor, sir, if we
had to recreate and build an entire base, I suspect the cost
would be very large indeed.
Senator Inouye. Can you provide that to us?
Mr. Slocombe. We can try to provide an estimate, at least.
Without doing a comprehensive survey it would be hard to tell
what it would cost to build a full-up permanent base in one of
these countries.
You and the chairman are right, the cost probably somewhere
is paid because the schools, the housing, the support of the
family, it will be paid somewhere, presumably, but it will be
in the United States, but the operating cost will be
substantially lower.
General Wilhelm. Senator, there is no question about it,
the recreation of a Howard Air Force Base like facility in
Latin America would be an enormously expensive proposition,
there is no question about it.
Mr. Slocombe. And also, running Howard for 10 years would
be an expensive proposition.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Burns.
Retention
Senator Burns. Senator Stevens and I had an opportunity to
go on a trip to the Middle East. He mentioned retention, and as
I visit our different military personnel and facilities around
the world, I am increasingly concerned about our ability to
build noncommissioned officers (NCO's) and to obtain skilled
people.
We met with a group and Senator Inouye was there in Saudi
Arabia where Air Force personnel, tech sergeants, staff
sergeants, men and women who had been, say, in the Air Force
for some 8 to 14 years were on their eleventh trip to the
Middle East since 1991, and were leaving the Armed Services.
They were highly skilled people. They were AWACS, they were
radar technicians on AWACS, and that continues to I think
bother and concern our chairman whenever we start talking about
the nuts and bolts of really operating an efficient military
organization, and that is my concern.
Aruba and Curacao operations
General, you have recommended Aruba and Curacao. They are
only 10 miles apart. What is the difference in their
operations, and can that operation be combined?
General Wilhelm. Sir, the operation cannot be combined, and
the problem is the capacity of the two airfields. As you point
out, the two islands are approximate to each other, but if you
look at the ramp space to park aircraft, if you look at the
capacity to make launches and recoveries, they are relatively
small facilities.
You need both to get the full coverage that we require, and
the breakout that we have done thus far in an operational
context would primarily place customs assets at Aruba,
principally their P-3's, where our Air Force assets would
operate out of Curacao, but neither base on its own is
sufficiently large to handle the numbers of aircraft that we
need to conduct the mission, so that is the reason for the two.
consideration of alternate Locations
Senator Burns. In the overall picture of this, did we
consider Honduras, Puerto Rico, or Guantanamo? Were any of
these facilities considered in the overall scheme of things?
General Wilhelm. Senator, they certainly were. We took a
close look at Honduras, but as you know we have had a
continuous presence there since 1983, so we are pretty familiar
with what that base will support, and what it will not support.
We really ran into a series of really three constraining
factors there. First, there was some reluctance on the part of
the Government of Honduras to open Soto Cano up for large-scale
counterdrug operations.
Second, Senator, I really needed to find a home for the
Army helicopters coming out of Panama, and we already had
rotary wing aviation assets on the ground at Soto Cano, so it
made good sense to marry those aircraft up with the ones that
were already there. That way we did not have to duplicate
maintenance supply and other structures at some other place.
Third, and probably most important, is geography. There are
some high elevations in and around the airfield at Soto Cano
that make it impossible for many of our aircraft to take off
with a full fuel load, so they end up with constrained time on
station and a lot of our counterdrug aircraft are not
configured for aerial refueling, so that was really a hard
constraint against wholesale use of Honduras.
As far as Puerto Rico is concerned and Guantanamo Bay,
those facilities are being used. The Coast Guard, as I think
you are aware, Senator, uses the Borinquen facility very
heavily in Puerto Rico to conduct many of its counterdrug and
other operations in what we refer to as the transit zone.
As we have come out of Panama I have identified airfields
in Puerto Rico as the basing locations for our theater airlift
assets, so we have put our C-130's in there to support our
other regional engagement missions.
Sir, as you know, our facilities at Guantanamo are somewhat
limited, and it is a tough runway to get in and out of with the
air space restrictions. Again, the Coast Guard and the Navy use
that probably just about up to the limits of its capacity, and
it does support many of our operations in the transit zone, so
sir, we really did look at just about every option we had in
the region.
FOL's
Senator Burns. Mr. Slocombe, would you give the committee
an update on negotiation with these countries for a permanent
presence there, and I say that because we are going to make
some capital expenditures, and I would like to know the status
of the negotiations of the recommended FOL's.
Mr. Slocombe. The short answer is, we are discussing with
both the Netherlands, who as I say have responsibility for the
Netherlands Antilles in this area, although they have to talk
to the local Governments as well, and with Ecuador, for long-
term arrangements which would provide the status of continued
eligibility, I guess, continued agreement to our use of the
facilities, and in particular continued, the equivalent of a
status of forces agreement.
It is not formally a status of forces agreement, but it
provides protection for our people against jurisdiction by the
local courts for official acts, the kind of issue which is
important if you are going to have people operating, even on a
temporary basis, out of a location, and in practice we will not
make investments, we will not do the construction until we have
a long-term commitment. I do not necessarily mean a commitment
forever, but a long-term commitment.
There is a meeting with the Netherlands tomorrow, the 15th,
and a meeting with the Ecuadoreans within a couple of weeks,
and the indications are that we will be able to work out our
arrangements. The progress is going forward, and in any event
we are confident on the point we will not spend the money.
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I have
one more question along those lines.
I understand a major issue remains as to whether or not
U.S. forces have the authority to operate and bear arms at
forward operational locations to protect our deployed assets.
Give me an idea, or would you comment on that issue for the
committee, and the status of those discussions with those host
governments?
Mr. Slocombe. My understanding is the host governments are
agreeable to U.S. personnel having firearms for security
purposes. They do now, and this should not be an issue as far
as we understand.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. I thank you.
Gentlemen, I am informed that our special operations forces
deployed to 152 countries, foreign countries, foreign
territories included, with 123 counterdrug missions in 22
countries last year.
We have got people in Haiti and in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
We have got people in Iceland. We have got people in Bosnia. We
have got people in South Korea. Two of those are accompanied,
all the rest are not.
Now, when you look at this, we travel a lot, probably too
much, and we ask too many questions. I remember two pilots that
visited me in Britain, I think it is 18 months or 2 years ago,
roughly. They had been with their families 3 months out of the
last 3 years, each year. They had been deployed to Kuwait, and
then redeployed to Bosnia, they had been deployed elsewhere,
and they were getting out.
Now, that is what I see is what is happening here now. We
are going from an accompanied tour to an unaccompanied tour
status in the war on drugs, which we support, but it does not
seem to me to have been thought through very well about
personnel.
What about security, General? This is probably one of the
most violent places in the world today because of the drug
activities. We are going to have 15 to 20 people in, what,
three different, four different locations. Are you going to
have an extra marine detachment there to protect them? Who is
going to protect them?
Force protection
General Wilhelm. Sir, the issue of force protection I will
tell you right up front is job one for the United States
Southern Command. That is the first thing we look at before we
deploy any force for any period of time to any location.
The security of the force, as you would expect, normally
comes from one of two sources. Either the host nation provides
security forces, or we provide augmenting security forces.
Senator, that is really one of the foremost tasks that I
levy against my intelligence organization, and that is to stay
dead on top of the security situation at every location where
we have troops deployed in Latin America and the Caribbean.
I have told them, I do not want information day to day, I
want it from minute to minute about the security conditions
there. For example, we received a report that one of the young
men, one of our first deployers to Ecuador, had been accosted
outside of his hotel room in Manta. He had been confronted by
two knife-wielding assailants. They took his billfold with $20
and a hand-held radio. We are working on that right now with
the Ecuadorean authorities.
We are very conscious of the fact that we need a buddy
system when people on liberty, or are at and around town. We
are working with the Ecuadoreans to get better security around
our billeting locations. This was a criminal act, sir. I only
bring that up anecdotally to let you know how much importance I
place on that. Sir, we will never blink our eyes where force
security is concerned.
Senator Stevens. Do you think these four bases are secure
without an occupational security force?
General Wilhelm. Sir, I believe these are secure locations.
Yes, sir, I do.
AWACS/retractable over the horizon radar
Senator Stevens. Apparently AWACS are part of the key to
this. What happened to that over-the-horizon radar we took from
Manchikta and put in Puerto Rico for this purpose? Are you
using it?
General Wilhelm. Yes, sir. Not the Puerto Rican radar quite
yet. Senator, as I think you know, the initial operational
capability for the relocatable over-the-horizon radar in
Vieques, Puerto Rico, is in fiscal year 2000.
The two radars that we have right now that give us the deep
look and broad area coverage are the ROTHR's in Virginia and
Texas. When we stand up the third radar in Puerto Rico it will
improve our coverage particularly of the deep source zone. The
issue here, sir, is that the radars do different jobs.
Senator Stevens. I understand that, but are they going to
take some of the pressure off the AWACS? You need three AWACS
now, rather than one.
General Wilhelm. Sir, we actually use two AWACS. That is
the asset level that is assigned to us by the Joint Chief of
Staff (JCS). We have not had two.
Senator Stevens. You had three circles?
General Wilhelm. No, sir. Those were the operating radius
out of the three FOL's. We would not necessarily have an AWACS
at each one of those. In fact, we would probably have no more
than two at any given time, because that is the asset ceiling
that has been assigned by JCS. Those circles simply depicted
the operational coverage that we could achieve from each of the
three FOL's.
Again, it is our duty to make clear that the ROTHR's
provide us with the initial tipper. They let us know that an
aircraft has taken off. The locating data is not precise. Ten
to 20 miles is about as close as we get.
We do not get altitude. That is when the AWACS, when the P-
3 domes come in. They add more precision to the locating data
on the contact, its direction of flight, its altitude, and that
is how we start to build a case toward a track of interest. But
all of the radars have to work together to make this happen.
Senator, I am sorry if the chart created confusion. We
actually rate only two AWACS assigned Southern Command for this
mission, and since the crisis in Kosovo we have only had one.
Senator Stevens. I went down and rode the P-3 out of Key
West into this area, and was briefed on what they were doing to
support the counterdrug activities. Why is it we cannot use
some portion of these forces out of Key West, from our own
soil?
General Wilhelm. Sir, we do fly some missions out of Key
West.
Senator Stevens. I know, I flew in them, but why don't you
use that location rather than these?
General Wilhelm. Sir, the operational reach from Key West
would not get into either the southern source zone nor--our
southern transit zone, excuse me, nor would it even touch the
source zone. It is simply too far away. We would end up
covering only really the northern and central regions of the
Caribbean. We could not cover Central America from there, and
we would get no coverage of the Pacific movement vectors.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Slocombe, would you give the committee
the estimate of the total numbers of military personnel
deployed overseas in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and projected for
2000, please?
Mr. Slocombe. I have the numbers, if you will bear with me
for a second.
Senator Stevens. You can give those for the record, if you
like.
Mr. Slocombe. Let me give them for the record.
[The information follows:]
Excerpt From Joint Staff Information Paper
Subject: Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Testimony
Regarding Overseas and Long Term Contingency Deployments
Purpose.--To respond to a Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Drug Enforcement Policy and Support request for
information.
Total number of military personnel deployed overseas.--This
number is best presented by the average number of active duty
U.S. military personnel deployed, not stationed, on any given
week overseas in support of contingency operations. This number
does not include those deployed in a temporary duty status or
those deployed for exercises.
[Deleted.]
Fiscal year 2000--Estimate not available.
Senator Stevens. I sort of am going back where Senator
Burns was. It does seem to us that the two, Aruba and Curacao,
are so close together in terms of the availability of the other
two sites, that the necessity of having four sites in this area
is stretching our capability more than we should stretch it. I
would urge you to take a look again as to whether we should
spend defense funds for the infrastructure and base operations
on a site that is for the Customs Service.
I have been trying to get people to do that in California
and in Arizona and New Mexico for years, but we will not do it,
but here we are spending money outside of our country for the
same operations to protect South American countries. I think we
need to develop a real definite United States policy of what we
are going to do with military assets in terms of the war on
drugs, but we are not currently using them to protect our own
borders.
When we were down on the Arizona border 2 weeks ago, there
were almost as many people coming into Arizona daily as there
are going into Albania from Kosovo, straining a whole operation
down there as far as immigration, customs, and border patrol.
In this area that you are operating in, the military takes
the full brunt of the whole operation, but you will not take
any in the United States. I really see the development of some
very inconsistent policies in terms of the use of military
force to support the war on drugs, and I hope to have that
reviewed by another committee.
Senator, do you have any further questions?
Senator Inouye. No, thank you.
Senator Stevens. Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. I guess I am concerned about our expenditure
further out than just, here we are, we have got a request now
for a reprogram of funds, and how we are going to move some of
those dollars around, and we have yet to figure out how we are
going to do that, General. We are supportive of the drug
intervention program down there, let there be no doubt about
that.
There will always be drug flow into this country for the
simple reason this country has got the money to buy them, and
that is it. You are never going to stop drugs coming into this
country until we run out of money, and that is just a fact, and
of course you have a terrific mission ahead of you.
But you know, I think the stabilization, the security of
the area also has far-reaching yields in the best interests of
this country. I am just wondering, have you given any thought
what we are going to need, say, past this initial investment in
capital expenditures, what it is going to take in the next 5
years?
I guess I am an old county commissioner. We really did not
get the efficiency of our county down until we did a 5-year
budget, and what we did this year affected what we could do 5
years down the road. I would kind of like to get ahead of the
hounds a little bit. Have we had any kind of a projection or
demand on our funds in that respect?
Five-year projection
General Wilhelm. Senator Burns, that is a wide-ranging
question, of course, and I will take it on in that context, if
I might.
Senator Burns. You might just give a thumbnail, because I
know you cannot be too precise. I understand that.
General Wilhelm. I think probably one of the most often-
used statements when we talk about the drug struggle is that
there is no silver bullet, and that is quite correct. I think
that we can have a very powerful impact on this problem, but we
are going to have to do it in a variety of ways, and I will
just work from south to north, and I will do this very quickly.
I encounter a lot of frustration, and sometimes the feeling
that this is mission impossible. I do not agree. There are
three countries, really, that produce drugs. They are Peru,
Colombia, and Bolivia, and we are winning the war in two of
those countries today. Cultivation was down 26 percent in Peru
last year, 17 percent in Bolivia, and their production of base
was down 25 percent in both countries.
The problem was the 28 percent increase in Colombia, but we
are doing some pretty vigorous things right now with Colombia
to help them more effectively counter the drug threat in their
country. It is going to take some time, but I am one of those
that is cautiously optimistic--not many of us, but I am
cautiously optimistic about Colombia, its national resilience,
and its ability to overcome its problems.
So two out of three is the way I look at it in the source
zone, and I think we have got some pretty good programs to do
that.
We knocked off 147 metric tons of dope in route to the
United States last year. That is not too bad. I would like to
get 200 metric tons this year.
In his national drug control strategy, General Barry
McCaffrey has created some hard goals for us to achieve, 10
percent reduction by 2002, and about a 20-percent reduction by
2007. We are going to work hard to make that happen and, of
course, that is nipping the stuff before it gets to the
frontiers of the United States.
Again, Senator, things like the forward operating locations
are absolutely indispensable if we want to do this. I am an
infantryman. I always want----
Senator Burns. Primarily you are a rifleman first and then
everything else comes later.
General Wilhelm. Absolutely, sir, and you always want to
defeat the enemy as far forward from your main battle position
as you possibly can. I would like to win as much of this war as
we can in the source zone, pick up the bleeders in the transit
zone, and then, as Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye
suggested, we probably need to buttress the defenses right
along our own borders, right in the wire, so to speak.
But I view my job as fighting the deep fight, going down
and bloodying their nose in the source zone, try to give them
two black eyes in the transit zone, and make them weak before
they get to the arrival zone.
If we do all these things, eradication, interdiction,
alternative development, the things that State and the rest of
the interagency do, sir, we can win this thing.
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, I know most that my Ranking
Member, Senator Murray of Washington, would probably have some
questions this morning. She is involved in other issues, and if
she has questions of either of you, I would appreciate if you
would respond both to the committee and to Senator Murray out
of respect, and I appreciate you having this hearing this
morning.
Senator Stevens. Yes. She is on the floor. May I ask,
Senator, have you received the supplemental for the $122.5
million for Milcon?
Senator Burns. We have not.
Senator Stevens. We have seen an outline of it. When are we
going to receive it?
General Wilhelm. Senator, I know that--I think the document
is called a 1391. I am looking at Steve Cortese. He knows these
kinds of things. I know that those documents were cut for the
$122.5 million, sir. I do not know where they are, but I am
sure between Mr. Slocombe and I we can find them.
Senator Stevens. We have not seen the projection. As
Senator Burns mentioned, we normally do get a 5-year
projection. We got the $45 million reprogramming, and then we
understood there is another sum coming for the year 2000,
$122.5 million, and we do not know, and that was for augmenting
facilities at the existing sites, and we were told that there
would be further funds for the increases in operational
maintenance and personnel cost, and we have not seen those. I
think it would be helpful if we could see those.
Are you operating planes out of these four bases now?
FOL funding concerns
General Wilhelm. Sir, we are, out of all of them, out of
Curacao, out of Aruba, and out of Manta, that is correct.
Senator Stevens. You have made some changes, I assume, out
of your operating accounts for that.
General Wilhelm. Yes. Well, this was money that was
previously in the accounts to conduct counterdrug operations,
and as I mentioned in response to a previous question, we have
done the things that we could do on the ground at Manta to
correct the deficiencies that were there, and we have gotten a
thumbs up from the Customs Service and from Navy, who have
operated the P-3's, that it is an acceptable base from an
operational and safety standpoint.
Sir, if I could clarify one point, the Milcon requirements
are for $42.8 million in 2000 with the balance in 2001, so it
is not all in fiscal year 2000.
And if I might return to one point for just a second,
because I am confused right now about the reprogramming action.
That reprogramming action was for fiscal year 1999. That was
$45 million, and all of that was in the O&M accounts, and
Senator, only $6.1 million of that was related to the forward
operating locations. The majority of those reprogramming funds
were to support other consolidations, and movements that were
associated with the closure of our bases in Panama.
I do not quite know what happened here.
Senator Stevens. We did not approve it. The main reason
was, it seemed to me, and I consulted with Senator Inouye, it
looked like we were going to implicitly approve the creation of
four new bases overseas without any congressional hearings at
all, and after our experience in Haiti and in King Sultan and
Kuwait, it was just not the thing to do in our opinion. We
think the public should have knowledge if we are going to start
a new series of bases overseas, they are going to be ongoing
for a period of time, and Mr. Slocombe was correct when he says
that 10 years it is going to be a short time on this.
Now, if this is a new policy to replace Howard and replace
it with four bases instead of one, the public ought to know.
That is one of the costs of the Panama Canal agreement, but it
is also one of the costs of the war on drugs, and this time it
is coming all out of defense. It is the first time I have seen
it come all out of defense, General.
In the past, with the Coast Guard, we transferred some
money to the Coast Guard, and the counterdrug funds were
transferred to the Coast Guard, and the P-3 I flew on was
reimbursed by the Coast Guard, or by the drug operations to the
Coast Guard. This, you are not seeking any reimbursement from
the other funds. This is using defense funds now for
counterdrug activity straight up, and I think there should be a
record on that, and we should understand what you are doing.
I am not dissatisfied with your explanation. I am not too
happy about it, but I think you have answered our questions,
and we will consult with the committee to see what we will do
about the reprogramming, but it just did not seem to us that we
ought to approve a reprogramming of operation and maintenance
(O&M) funds for the counterdrug activities in a fashion that
you could implicitly assume that we had approved the concept of
replacing Howard with four different bases.
General Wilhelm. Senator, I can completely appreciate your
concerns. The reason I wanted to mention it, sir, was I read
your letter of, I believe June 28, and the issues that are
addressed in there I had a hard time correlating with the real
purpose for the $45 million reprogramming action.
Senator Stevens. We did not get the breakdown of how you
were going to spend the $45 million until after I sent the
letter. Then we were told the specifics.
The reprogramming request was not specific. It was just for
use in four locations overseas of O&M money for the drug
operations, and we just wanted to have a record on it, and now
that we have it, as I said, I am not too happy about what I
see, because I see further stress on the forces from
unaccompanied tours for a period of time ahead of us that is
going to lead to worse statistics as far as reenlistment is
concerned.
I do not know the answer to it. I am sure you do not know,
either, but I am getting to the point where every time I talk
to these young pilots--it is particularly pilots that we have a
real shortage of now. Do you have any knowledge of what the
shortage of the AWACS pilots is now?
General Wilhelm. Sir, I do not know.
Senator Stevens. We will have to track that down.
Senator Burns. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a
point. We sat there, all three of us sat there and listened to
those young folks, among NCO's. I mean, these are the skilled
people that I think are the nuts and bolts of making this thing
operate, and that was very enlightening, that day we spent, and
we threw everybody out of there and just had a very frank
conversation with those folks, so that is a concern.
I thank the chairman.
Additional committee questions
Senator Stevens. We did that in Kuwait, at King Sultan.
Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate it.
[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 Conrad Burns
dod forward operating locations for counter drug operations
Question. Why did the Department not request military construction
funding for these forward operating locations as is the normal practice
for constructing military facilities overseas?
Answer. The request was based on what was believed to be the
established precedent concerning MILCON and the DOD's Counterdrug
Central Transfer Account (CTA). The precedence was the Department's
fiscal year 1995 CTA request, which included $10,000,000 in MILCON
funding for the construction of a Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar
(ROTHR) in Puerto Rico. The Congress appropriated this MILCON amount as
a part of the CTA in Public Law 103-335.
Question. It appears that there are additional funding requirements
for these bases over the next several years. Will the military
construction budget for fiscal year 2001 include these additional
projects?
Answer. Yes, the military construction funding for the remaining
requirements at the FOLs will be forwarded as a part of the fiscal year
2001 MILCON budget.
Question. What will be the legal basis for U.S. deployed or
stationed personnel in both the Netherland Antilles and Ecuador?
Answer. All personnel will be at the Forward Operating Locations
pursuant to bi-lateral access agreements with the respective countries.
They will be deployed to fulfill our 10 U.S.C. 124 detection and
monitoring mission.
fol negotiation status
Question. What is the status of negotiations with these countries
on securing a more permanent agreement to base our forces?
Answer. The status of FOL negotiations are fluid. Ambassador Brown
is doing a superb job in securing these agreements and is in the best
position to provide you a current status of the negotiations. I am
confident that these agreements will be secured in the near future.
concept of operations
Question. Could you begin by describing how you envision the
concept of operations for each of the three bases in Aruba, Curacao,
and Ecuador?
Answer. These sites will replace the capabilities lost with our
departure from Panama but without the overhead costs of building a
base. This is achieved through forward operating location (FOL)
agreements.
FOL agreements with host nations enable us to use their existing
facilities, upgraded to U.S. standards, for the conduct of counterdrug
operations throughout the source zone and to do so at considerably less
expense than our operations from Howard Air Force Base.
The Caribbean sites of Curacao and Aruba are to focus on the
transit zone and the northern portion of the source zone. Light and
medium aircraft (C-550, C-130, F-16 and P-3) will fly from these sites
in support of our detection and monitoring mission. Curacao will also
be capable of hosting heavy aircraft (E-3 AWACS and KC-135).
Manta, Ecuador, will be capable of hosting all three weight classes
of aircraft and is the most critical of the three sites. Manta provides
the flexibility to conduct intelligence-cued operations throughout the
deep source zone with little or no warning to narco-traffickers. The
necessity to maximize the use of limited assets, like the AWACS, makes
Manta the right place. No other FOL provides the flexibility to direct
this strategic asset against the shifting patterns of the narco-
traffickers in Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia.
facilities
Question. What is the current state of facilities and
infrastructure at each of these locations?
Answer. Facilities and infrastructure at the Forward Operating
Locations (FOLs) is generally good but will require approximately
$122.5 million in upgrades to meet U.S. operational and safety
standards. To reduce costs, we will use host-nation facilities to the
maximum extent consistent with U.S. operational, safety, and quality of
life considerations. The Aruba Airport Authority currently provides
adequate office space inside the airport terminal and sufficient ramp
space adjacent to the main commercial ramp. Renovation on the Aruba
airport terminal, scheduled to begin on 1 November 1999, will require
construction of temporary office facilities. In Curacao, the host-
nation government and the Dutch military allocated sufficient aircraft
ramp space and assigned temporary office facilities. In Manta, host-
nation military facilities are supporting limited operations. Local
civilian establishments are providing billeting and messing support at
all three locations.
Question. Describe the type of facilities that Southern Command and
the Air Force agree are needed for each of the locations?
Answer. To meet U.S. operational and safety standards, all three
Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) require additional aircraft ramp
space, adequate aircraft maintenance facilities, and permanently
assigned office spaces. To reduce costs, we will use expeditionary
facilities at each location where possible. Manta Air Base (AB)
requires more upgrades to meet U.S. operational and safety standards
than Curacao and Aruba international airfields. Manta requires moderate
upgrades to crash/fire/rescue capability, bulk fuel storage capacity,
and billeting/messing facilities. We estimate the total construction
cost for all three FOLs to be $122.5 million.
military construction estimates
Question. Finally, what are our military construction estimates for
each of the bases in Aruba, Curacao and Ecuador?
Answer. For the sake of clarity, Forward Operating Locations (FOL)
are not bases. FOLs are host nation facilities where the U.S. is
granted use and access for the purpose of conducting counterdrug
operations. Military construction is limited to those areas necessary
to support U.S. counterdrug operations.
For fiscal year 2000 we must receive $42.8 million of which $10.8
million will be used for consolidated planning and design of all three
FOLs, with the remainder being used for airfield pavement/site
improvements at Manta, Ecuador. Manta will require the bulk of the
expenditure to enhance the parking ramp, runway and taxiways. The
upgrades will allow us to accommodate four large aircraft (E-3, AWACS
and KC-135) and four medium (E-2, P-3, C-550, C-130, and ARL) aircraft.
In the following fiscal year the remaining $79.7 million is needed
to complete upgrades in all three sites ensuring adequate, safe and
mission essential facilities from which to operate.
construction of temporary facilities
Question. It appears that we plan to construct permanent facilities
at each of these forward operating locations. Why not use more
temporary facilities?
Answer. We are using host nation facilities to the maximum extent
possible at each of the locations. We will only build essential
facilities that we cannot obtain from the host nation. In the initial
stages of developing the forward operating locations, temporary
facilities were used, and where temporary facilities can support the
operation, we will retain those temporary facilities.
Temporary facilities, however, like the Air Force's ``Harvest
Bare'' camps, are currently being used for interim facilities which
will continue until more permanent facilities can be completed. These
types of facilities (tents and prefabricated structures) are effective,
but have a limited useful life. After 18-24 months they require
replacement or significant maintenance.
Permanent support facilities will be constructed using materials
and methods which will result in the least cost, both in terms of
initial construction and routine operations and maintenance.
``Expeditionary'' type facilities (pre-engineered buildings, K-spans,
etc.) will be considered where practical.
operational requirements
Question. What are the operational requirements for Aruba and
Curacao installations?
Answer. The operational requirements for Forward Operating
Locations in Aruba and Curacao are:
--An operational capability of twenty-four hours per day, seven days
per week.
--Night and all weather landing/takeoff capability with manned air
traffic control facilities.
--Runway length of at least 8,000 feet, with a load bearing capacity
for AWACS and C-141 aircraft.
--Refueling/Defueling capability.
--Crash, Fire and Rescue services.
--Ramp, Hangar, Office and Storage space.
--Communications capability to support aircraft maintenance
requirements, and connectivity with command and control
organizations such as Joint Interagency Task Force East (JIATF-
E).
alternative forward operating locations
Question. Did the department consider our facilities in Honduras,
Puerto Rico and in Guantanamo Bay to conduct these operations? Please
explain why these are not being used rather than new locations?
Answer. Yes, and all three locations continue to support
counterdrug operations just as they did prior to the closure of Howard
Air Force Base.
Soto Cano Air Base, Honduras, is the home for a majority of Army
aviation assets in theater. These assets support counterdrug operations
such as CENTRAL SKIES as well as many non-counterdrug missions.
Although the topography of the region limits Soto Cano's use as a
Forward Operating Location, it can be used to support surge operations
in the Eastern Pacific and in Central America.
The geographic location of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Naval Station
Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, allow Department of Defense, Coast Guard,
and Customs Service detection, monitoring and tracking assets to
continue supporting counterdrug operations in the Caribbean transit
zone. These locations, however, do not provide the required operational
reach into the South American source zone and large portions of the
Eastern Pacific.
construction of temporary facilities
Question. How long is it anticipated that our forces will remain at
these forward operating locations?
Answer. We anticipate a network of interlocking Forward Operating
Locations (FOLs) will be necessary until we have achieved the targets
and goals directed in Presidential Decision Directive 14 and the
National Drug Control Strategy. Ongoing negotiations are for an
agreement that allows U.S. access to FOLs for 10 years with an option
for an additional 5 years.
host nation support
Question. General Wilhelm, what if any contributions are the host
nations providing for the construction of these forward operating
locations?
Answer. The host nations of Ecuador and the Netherlands are
contributing significantly to our efforts to establish forward
operating locations.
At all three locations, the host nations have provided temporary
ramp space at no charge. The same holds true of office space,
maintenance facilities, and hangar space provided on a temporary basis
within their capability. In Curacao, the Royal Netherlands Navy will
provide, on a permanent basis, sufficient ramp space for two P-3 and
one E-2 aircraft along with co-use of their maintenance hangar. In
Manta, the Ecuadorian Air Force has provided several buildings for use
on a permanent basis. The Ecuadorian Air Force also conducted extensive
excavation of brush and existing obstructions around the runway
environment so counterdrug operations could commence in June. This
action was performed to meet U.S. air safety standards--the Ecuadorian
fighter wing at Manta did not require this safety enhancement.
These gratuitous actions, along with the host nations'
contributions to overcoming day-to-day obstacles, have convinced me of
their sincere desire to participate in our collective counterdrug
mission.
military construction funding
Question. The Department requested $42.8 million in fiscal year
2000 Southern Command military construction funding for the forward
operating locations. The total program requirements are $122.37
million. What are the priority projects for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Fiscal year 2000 military construction program funding of
$42.8 million for Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) will provide $10.8
million for consolidated FOL planning and design and the remainder will
be used for parking ramp enhancements and runway/taxiway repair to
accommodate four large aircraft (E-3, AWACS and KC-135) and four medium
(E-2, P-3, C-550, C-130 ARL) aircraft in Manta, Ecuador. These funds
will also provide the means to repair an existing ramp for three medium
aircraft.
supporting aircraft
Question. General, the Congress had earlier been briefed on the
forward operating locations that these facilities were to support
transit aircraft on a mission required basis. However, the
documentation that the committee has received indicates that the F-15s
or F-16s will be the only aircraft permanently assigned to Curacao. Is
this a change to the initial intent of the program and what is the
justification for the permanent assignment of these aircraft?
Answer. There has been no change in our original concept of
operations at the Curacao, Aruba or Manta Forward Operating Locations
(FOLs). Air National Guard units, from throughout the United States,
rotate every six weeks and crews rotate at 15-day intervals. As a new
unit arrives, the previous unit departs. This rotation achieves near-
continuous presence with temporarily deployed personnel and equipment.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
forward operating locations (fols)
Question. Mr. Chairman, I would like to preface my question by
commending General Wilhelm for his leadership and dedication to the
Defense Department's counter narcotics mission. As the head of the U.S.
Southern Command, he has mounted a determined and aggressive campaign
to stem the flow of illegal drugs from the Caribbean and Central
America and to promote stability and democracy in the region. His is an
enormous task, and a vitally important one. We are all well aware that
it is crucial that he succeeds.
On that note, I cannot help but think that a coordinated battle
plan is a necessary ingredient of success, but what this Committee is
being presented appears to be more of a scattershot, almost piecemeal
approach. One day, we receive a relatively vague reprogramming request
for $45 million for Forward Operating Locations. Another day, we are
asked to shift $42.8 million into military construction for the FOL's.
Later, we are told that a total of $122 million will be needed for
construction at these locations in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. At the
same time, Southern Command is significantly increasing its presence in
Puerto Rico, and Congress is being urged to acquire the headquarters
site that SOUTHCOM currently leases in Miami. I understand that all of
these actions were precipitated by the closing of Howard Air Force Base
in Panama, but I am concerned that in the haste to relocate the
missions that had been based at Howard, we may be so focused on short
term fixes that we lose sight of our long term goals.
I understand that SOUTHCOM is currently operating some missions out
of the proposed Forward Operating Locations, so my first question, for
both General Wilhelm and Mr. Slocomb, is this: what would the impact on
the counter narcotics mission be if SOUTHCOM were to complete a long-
range master plan, as the Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction
has directed, before investing $122 million in overseas military
construction projects? How quickly could you complete such a plan and
submit it to Congress.
Answer. The Department of Defense long-range plan for Forward
Operating Locations has been developed and was briefed to the Senate
Subcommittee for Military Construction in August. Because of the many
variables that have an impact on these plans, they are always being
updated and adapted in order to have the greatest impact on our
mission. The Department of Defense and U.S. Southern Command stand
ready to provide updates or answer your questions at any time.
deployments to forward operating locations (fols)
Question. General Wilhelm, you have indicated that the majority of
deployments to the FOLs would be short term--a period of weeks as
opposed to months. In responding to the Committee on the specific
lengths of tours, would you also indicate for the record how frequently
a service member would be rotated into this duty. In other words, how
many times a year could a service member expect to be assigned to this
duty, and what would be the total amount of time during the year that
he or she would have to spend away from their families?
Answer. Each Service establishes deployment timelines consistent
with their overarching personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO) criteria. All our
Forward Operating Location (FOL) deployments will be short duration
temporary duty (TDY) assignments. FOLs provide Services the flexibility
to tailor their PERSTEMPO criteria to support our mission requirements.
The frequency with which individual Service members would be assigned
to these missions is a Service determination.
quality of life
Question. In your opinion, how will these assignments affect the
quality of life and operating tempo concerns that are having such a
severe impact on Air Force retention levels? What steps are you taking
to mitigate the impact of any quality of life concerns caused by this
duty on the service members and their families?
Answer. Forward Operating Location (FOL) deployments have a
positive impact on morale and retention. Counterdrug operations are
actual missions against actual targets. Aircrews respond favorably to
these challenges and gain a sense of accomplishment from performing
these missions. Guard personnel support many of the Air Force
deployments, easing the operating tempo on the active force. For
example, Guard F-15s/F-16s fly Coronet Nighthawk deployments, typically
deploying from various home units to Curacao every six weeks and
rotating crews at 15-day intervals.
Service personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO) is further reduced by
contracting as much base operating support as possible. We selected,
from available sites, those airfields that best meet U.S. operational
requirements, safety standards, and adequate personnel support
facilities. We will upgrade these facilities to U.S. standards during
the next two fiscal years. The quality of life needs of military
personnel and their families will be provided by the Services.
home bases of deployed personnel
Question. General Wilhelm, would you provide for the record the
home bases from which the personnel would be deployed to the Forward
Operating Location missions.
Answer. The designation of units and personnel to support
counterdrug requirements at the Forward Operating Locations is Service
responsibility. I defer to the Services to answer this question.
security arrangements
Question. General Wilhelm, you indicated that, in your opinion, the
proposed FOLs are secure locations. Would you elaborate for the record
on the specific security arrangements that will be made for U.S.
personnel assigned either permanently or temporarily to these sites,
who will provide the security on and off base, and what the security
arrangements will cost the U.S.
Answer. The assessed terrorism threat levels at Forward Operating
Locations (FOLs) are NEGLIGIBLE for Curacao and Aruba and LOW for
Ecuador. The assessed threat levels for crime is MEDIUM for Curacao and
Aruba and HIGH for Ecuador. Threat level assessments are updated on a
daily basis. Host nations provide security at the FOLs, to counter the
assessed terrorism and criminal threat levels.
As our executive agent for FOLs, U.S. Air Forces South (USSOUTHAF)
is responsible for the security of permanent and temporary duty (TDY)
Department of Defense (DOD) and U.S. Customs Service personnel located
at the FOLs. Where necessary, USSOUTHAF augments host nation security
forces.
In addition, all U.S. personnel deploying to the U.S. Southern
Command area of responsibility are required to receive pre-deployment
anti-terrorism (AT) awareness training. FOL Detachment Commanders are
also required to conduct security in-briefs for personnel arriving at
FOLs.
Security costs are negligible because of host nation support and
existing security provisions at FOL facilities. Physical security
requirements will be integrated into plans for U.S. FOL infrastructure
improvements.
housing
Question. I note that the $122 million military construction cost
estimate includes funding for visiting enlisted and officers quarters
at Manta. What, if any, type of housing is being provided for visiting
military personnel at the sites in Aruba and Curacao? What is the cost
estimate? What type of housing (on base, off base; leased; single or
multi family etc.) will be provided for the permanent U.S. personnel
stationed at these sites? What is the cost estimate?
Answer. Visiting military and interagency personnel to Aruba and
Curacao are billeted in U.S. Air Force contracted hotels, most of which
are within 15 minutes of their assigned airfields. The fiscal year 2000
budget for housing temporary duty personnel is $2,700,000. Furthermore,
a small number of permanent personnel will be assigned housing within
the local community. Their housing costs are projected to be within the
current housing allowance.
regional assistance
Question. General Wilhelm, you note in your prepared remarks that
the nations of the Caribbean and Latin America recognize that fighting
the illegal drug trade in the region is a shared responsibility.
Certainly, Southern Command's counter narcotics operations benefit not
only the United States but also our neighbors in the Caribbean. Other
than allowing the U.S. military to use existing facilities on Aruba,
Curacao, and Ecuador, what types of assistance are we receiving from
these nations to fight illegal drugs?
Answer. Together with the Latin American, Caribbean, and European
nations, we are pursuing a regional approach to combat illicit drug
production, transportation, and the associated problems inherent with
the narcotics trade.
In addition to the Forward Operating Location agreements, the
Dutch, British, and French contribute surface and air assets to
regional counterdrug operations in the Caribbean. This multinational
support provides greater operational flexibility and complements U.S.
and Participating Nation military and law enforcement assets on a
continuing basis with maritime air detection and monitoring, at sea
refueling, and maritime patrol aircraft.
The nations of the Caribbean and Latin America support the regional
counterdrug effort by conducting both military and law enforcement
counterdrug operations within their borders. They own and operate
numerous ground based radars to conduct detection and tracking and they
provide the military and law enforcement personnel who are interdicting
drugs, eradicating illicit crops, and arresting drug traffickers inside
their respective countries. In 1998, nations of the source and transit
zone were responsible for 85 percent of worldwide cocaine seizures and
the destruction of 3.1 million marijuana plants and over 38,500
hectares of coca. Additionally, 18 nations in the hemisphere have
entered into bilateral maritime agreements with the U.S. to help each
nation plan and conduct multinational air and maritime counterdrug
operations regardless of territorial seas or airspace.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
colombian revolutionary armed forces (farc)
Question. Are Colombian drug-related guerrillas of the Colombian
revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) still operating in the jungle
province of Darien in Panama and are you concerned that this group may
threaten the operation of the Panama Canal?
Answer. The FARC is reported to frequently cross the Colombian-
Panamanian border into the Darien province. Although the Panamanian
Public Forces (PPF) are neither manned, trained, nor equipped to combat
them, I do not believe the FARC, or any other paramilitary group,
presents a threat to the safe and efficient operation of the Canal at
this time.
panama unexploded ordnance
Question. Under Article IV of the Panama Canal Treaty the United
States promised to clean up unexploded ordnance in former U.S. military
installations. However, I have heard press reports that we are instead
planning to close certain areas rather than clearing the ordnance. Why
can't the ordnance be cleared?
Answer. There are former range areas, characterized by steep cliffs
and triple canopy jungles, which are virtually impassable. Ordnance
detection and clearing in these areas is not possible without
subjecting personnel to extreme risk or resulting in significant
environmental damage.
We used the same techniques and technology to clear our ranges in
Panama that we used to clear transferring rangelands in the United
States. More aggressive clearing methods such as clear cutting and
excavation have been rejected for the devastating effect they would
have on the forests and the plant and animal species harbored in these
canal watershed areas. The areas that cannot be cleared represent two
percent of the total acreage returned to the Government of Panama under
the Panama Canal Treaty.
The framers of the treaty realized the range areas could not be
completely cleared of all unexploded ordnance, which is why all parties
agreed to include the ``practicability'' clause in the document. We
have complied with our treaty obligations consistent with terrain
accessibility, technology limitations, and environmental concerns.
dod forward operating locations for counterdrug operations
Question. I understand that the United States funds the Regional
Counterdrug Training Academy. I would like to know more about this
academy. Where is it located/Does it do the same type of training as
the Army School of the Americas, at Fort Benning, Georgia? Is it
training military or law enforcement officials? Does the Academy
include human rights training? Does the Academy provide Counter-
insurgency training? (Note: The remainder of this question will be
addressed by SOUTHCOM) The Washington Post reported in May 1998 that
U.S. special operations forces were training Colombian military units
under the Joint Combined Exchange training program. It seems very
difficult to conduct counter-insurgency operations when guerrillas and
drug traffickers are located in and around civilian populations. Are
the special forces providing counter-insurgency training? How is human
rights training integrated? Does this training conform with the Leahy
Amendment, which prohibits training to units that engage in human
rights violations?
Answer. The Regional Counterdrug Training Academy (RCTA) is located
at Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi. The RCTA was established
in 1992 and its mission is to provide no cost, ``street level'' case-
making, counterdrug skills to domestic law enforcement officials. The
RCTA is congressionally directed and is funded through the Department
of Defense. The Mississippi National Guard is responsible for
management of the academy and the courses are taught by guest subject
matter experts, with a ``cops training cops'' environment. The RCTA
does not do the same type of training as the Army School of the
Americas, at Fort Benning, Georgia. The academy's mission is to train
domestic local law enforcement officials in counterdrug operations,
versus the School of the America's mission to train foreign military
forces in military operations. The RCTA curriculum includes some of the
following general areas: Undercover Investigations, K-9 Training, Drug
Labs, Operational Skills and Raid Planning. The academy has more than
35 courses, all oriented toward domestic local law enforcement
counterdrug operations. The curriculum for the academy is oriented
toward domestic law enforcement officials and specifically does not
cover training in human rights or counter-insurgency operations.
One last point, the academy's original charter was limited to law
enforcement officials in the states of Alabama, Louisiana, and
Mississippi, but in 1996 was modified to include Georgia. The RCTA is
now authorized to train domestic law enforcement officials outside the
four-state region, as well as National Guard personnel involved in
counterdrug support operations.
Question. Is a forward operating location agreement still a
possibility in Panama? If not, what additional location is Central
America is DOD seeking?
Answer. At this time, there are no plans to re-engage the
Government of Panama on the topic of U.S. military access. DOD will
comply fully with the provisions of the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty and
will withdraw all military forces and turnover facilities in Panama by
December 31, 1999. DOD and the State Department are coordinating
efforts to identify a location for a FOL in Central America however no
site has yet to be identified.
conclusion of hearings
Senator Stevens. If there is nothing further, this will
conclude the hearings for both the Defense Subcommittee and the
Military Construction Subcommittee.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., Wednesday, July 14, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittees were recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Apgar, Mahlon, IV, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations
and Environment), Department of the Army, Department of Defense71, 74
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Questions submitted to....................................... 103
Baillie, Frederick N., Executive Director of Resources, Planning,
and Performance, Defense Logistics Support Command, Defense
Logistics Agency, Defense Agencies, Department of Defense...... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Questions submitted to....................................... 65
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Questions submitted by....................30, 65, 66, 103, 128, 164
Statement of................................................. 137
Carrato, Rear Adm. Thomas F., PHS, Chief Operating Officer,
Tricare Management Activity, Defense Agencies, Department of
Defense........................................................ 39
Questions submitted to....................................... 64
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho:
Prepared statement........................................... 95
Statement of................................................. 95
Demesme, Ruby B., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Manpower,
Reserve Affairs, Installations and Environment, Department of
the Air Force.................................................. 113
Prepared statement........................................... 114
Questions submitted to....................................... 128
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois, questions
submitted by................................................... 170
Helmly, Brigadier General James R., Deputy Chief, Army Reserve,
Office Chief, Army Reserve, Department of the Army, Department
of Defense..................................................... 71
Higginbotham, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey B., USMC, Deputy Chief of Staff
for Installations and Logistics, Headquarters Marine Corps,
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.................. 1
Hunter, Major General Milton, Director of Military Programs, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense........................................................ 71
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, questions
submitted by................................................... 31
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, statement of... 134
Koepp, Col. Richard R., Director, Installations and Logistics,
Office of Air Force Reserve, Department of the Air Force,
Department of Defense.......................................... 113
Lupia, Maj. Gen. Eugene A., Headquarters, USAF, the Civil
Engineer, Deputy Chief of Staff, Installations and Logistics,
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense............. 113
Questions submitted to....................................... 131
McCalls, Thomas W.L., Deputy Assistant Secretary (Environment
Safety and Occupational Health), Department of the Air Force,
Department of De-
fense.......................................................... 113
McGinn, Gail H., Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Agencies, Department of
Defense........................................................39, 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Questions submitted to....................................... 66
McKinley, Brig. Gen. Craig R., Director, Air National Guard,
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense............. 113
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington:
Prepared statements..........................................17, 73
Questions submitted by...........34, 63, 66, 73, 111, 130, 131, 167
Pirie, Robert B. Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Installations and Environment), Department of the Navy,
Department of Defense.......................................... 1, 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from Kansas, statement of........ 135
Slocombe, Hon. Walter B., Under Secretary of Defense (Policy),
Department of Defense........................................133, 147
Prepared statement........................................... 149
Smith, Rear Adm. Louis M., Commander, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Department of the Navy, Department of
Defense........................................................ 1
Squier, Brigadier General Michael J., Deputy Director, Army
National Guard, Department of the Army, Department of Defense.. 71
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska:
Opening statement............................................ 133
Questions submitted by.........................33, 64, 65, 111, 130
Statement of................................................. 18
Suggs, Rear Adm. Ralph E., USN, Deputy Commander in Chief, U.S.
Special Operations Command, Defense Agencies, Department of
Defense........................................................ 39
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Questions submitted to....................................... 63
Totushek, Rear Adm. John B., Chief of Naval Reserve, Department
of the Navy, Department of Defense............................. 1
Van Antwerp, Major General Robert L., Jr., Assistant Chief of
Staff for Installation Management, Department of the Army,
Department of De-
fense.......................................................... 71
Wilhelm, Gen. Charles E., Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern
Command, U.S. Marine Corps, Department of Defense.............. 133
Prepared statement........................................... 143
Statement of................................................. 139
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Agencies
u.s. special operations command
tricare management activity
defense logistics agency
personnel support, families and education
Page
Additional committee questions................................... 63
Bangor Elementary School......................................... 57
Department of Defense education activity (DoDEA) facility
requirement.................................................... 43
Distribution space............................................... 62
DLA:
Fiscal year 2000 Milcon program.............................. 52
Privatization................................................ 62
DOD:
Child care requirements...................................... 58
Fuel system replacement...................................... 61
School eligibility........................................... 61
Fiscal year 2000:
Advanced appropriation....................................... 56
Medical Milcon program....................................... 48
Incremental funding.............................................. 55
Medical facility in South Korea.................................. 59
Personnel support, families and education........................ 39
Special Operations Command (SOCOM)............................... 40
Tricare response time............................................ 60
Department of the Air Force
Additional committee questions................................... 128
Environmental cleanup............................................ 122
Overseas military construction................................... 123
Military housing................................................. 125
One-plus-one..................................................... 125
Malmstrom Air Force Base......................................... 127
Department of the Army
Additional committee questions................................... 103
Family housing privatization.....................................97, 99
Pilot programs................................................... 97
Incremental funding.............................................. 99
Barracks modernization........................................... 100
Milcon funding--chemical demilitarization........................ 101
Competitive sourcing............................................. 102
Department of the Navy
Additional committee questions................................... 30
Barracks......................................................... 20
Funding...................................................... 22
Base realignment and closure [BRAC]..............................12, 26
Demolition program............................................... 27
Incremental funding..............................................19, 23
Infrastructure:
Budget in Perspective, the................................... 5
Efficiency Efforts........................................... 15
Marine Corps demolition program.................................. 29
Milcon funding levels............................................ 25
Navy budget overview............................................. 3
Puget sound projects............................................. 25
Quality of life.................................................. 29
Retention and recruiting......................................... 22
Department of Defense
Forward Operating Locations (FOL) for Counterdrug Operations
Additional committee questions................................... 164
Aruba and Curacao operations..................................... 156
AWACS............................................................ 141
Retractable over the horizon radar........................... 159
Deployments...................................................... 152
Reduction in................................................. 148
Emerging threats................................................. 135
Five-year projection............................................. 161
Food safety...................................................... 136
Force protection................................................. 158
Forward operating locations (FOLs)..............136, 140, 147, 153, 157
Concept...................................................... 154
Cost......................................................... 151
Deployments, reduction in.................................... 148
Funding concerns............................................. 162
Infrastructure costs............................................. 134
Locations, consideration of alternate............................ 156
Military construction funding.................................... 133
Military facilities, new......................................... 133
North American Free Trade Agreement.............................. 137
Post Panama theater architecture................................. 139
Reprogramming.................................................... 138
Retention........................................................ 155
-