[Senate Hearing 106-649]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-649
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4425/S. 2521
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-803 cc WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington 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)
Sonia King (Minority)
Administrative Support
Mazie R. Mattson
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, February 29, 2000
Department of Defense:
Department of the Navy....................................... 1
Defense agencies:
U.S. Special Operations Command.......................... 33
Defense Logistics Agency................................. 33
Department of Defense Education Activity................. 33
TRICARE Management Activity.............................. 33
Tuesday, March 7, 2000
Department of Defense:
Department of the Army....................................... 61
Department of the Air Force.................................. 95
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:15 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Craig, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT B. PIRIE, JR., ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
ACCOMPANIED BY:
REAR ADM. LOUIS SMITH, CIVIL ENGINEER CORPS, U.S. NAVY,
COMMANDER, NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND/CHIEF OF
CIVIL ENGINEERS
BRIG. GEN. HAROLD MASHBURN, U.S. MARINE CORPS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF FOR INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS
REAR ADM. JOHN COTTON, U.S. NAVAL RESERVE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NAVAL RESERVE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. We will call to order this Subcommittee on
Military Construction of the Senate Appropriations Committee,
and first of all, we want to thank everybody this morning here.
We wanted to get a jump on it, and I was late. We had a Chinese
delegation, trade delegation, who visited Montana last week,
and they were in town this morning, so we felt we had better
meet with them, as we didn't get to meet with them in the
State.
We will hear first this morning from the Department of the
Navy. We're pleased to have before us this morning Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Installation and Environment, Mr.
Pirie. Secretary, it's good to see you again. We have sat
across this table more times than we both want to admit, but
we're still grazing the green side, and that has something to
say about the relationship. It's always a pleasure to have you
with us and to lay out some things. We have Admiral Smith,
Major General Mashburn, and Admiral Cotton, and we appreciate
all of you coming this morning.
Compared to last year's budget submission proposal, the
fiscal year 2001 budget appears to be in somewhat better shape.
We still have some wrinkles to iron out, but nevertheless, I
think there's no real mountains here to climb, but just to
smooth out the edges a little bit. However, there is still
insufficient funding in the budget for adequately addressing
those critical mission and quality of life shortfalls. We're
disappointed in that area. Although if your fiscal year 2001
budget attempts to provide funding for a limited number of
barracks, family housing, water projects and airfield
facilities, it's more of a question of allocating shortages
across the Department of the Navy.
Also of great concern is a loss of the 5 percent
contingency fund for all military construction and family
housing projects. I'm worried about this and the impact it may
have, and I have to ask are we compromising our quality
standards, and are we slowing up the projected execution and
possible deferment of some projects? I'm concerned about that.
I look forward to hearing about this and the potential
impact of all the witnesses as they present their testimony. We
look forward to working with you to ensure that the most
critical requirements are met in the budget, and, yes, we are
very, very sensitive to retention and recruitment and the
quality of life of our military people because we feel like
that this is very, very important to our overall national
structure, force structure, and, of course, our national
defense.
I would ask you this morning if you could keep your
statements brief. Your entire statement will be made a part of
the record, and then we can start a dialogue. It's my pleasure
to see Senator Murray here this morning. We have worked
together on this committee now for the third or fourth year in
a row, and it is always a pleasure working with her and her
staff. Thank you for coming this morning.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
especially appreciate your scheduling this hearing today on the
fiscal year 2001 military construction programs proposed by the
Navy and our Defense agencies. I welcome all of our witnesses
today, and I look forward to your testimony.
I was pleased and I'm sure you were, too, Mr. Chairman, to
see that this year's proposed military construction is back on
track. It is a 1-year budget and not hitched to a 2-year
funding wagon as it was last year.
Having worked as hard as we did to fully fund the fiscal
year 2000 military construction appropriations bill without
impacting readiness, I would have welcomed a stronger effort on
the part of the Services to more robustly fund this year's
military construction budget, particularly for the Reserves.
Congress made great progress last year in addressing readiness
issues, and I am encouraged to see Secretary Cohen's emphasis
on improving housing and health care opportunities in this
year's defense budget, but I would have liked to have seen a
corresponding increase in military construction funding.
That said, I do see some promising trends in this budget. I
am especially interested in the Navy's homeport ashore program,
and I look forward to hearing more about that. I am also very
interested in the status of the school facilities studies being
undertaken by the defense education activity, and I appreciate
the effort that has been put towards that study this year.
However, I also see some disturbing trends in this budget,
including the decision by DOD to eliminate the 5 percent
contingency funding for military construction projects.
I understand from your advance testimony, Mr. Pirie, you
also have some concerns in this regard, and I would be
interested to hear you elaborate on those.
Finally, I look forward to hearing more about the Navy's
family housing and barracks privatization plans, particularly
as they apply to Washington State. I think there is merit in
the privatization program, but there are also a lot of
questions, and I think it is important that we keep a close eye
on that program.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for scheduling this hearing,
and I thank our witnesses for coming. I look forward to hearing
from all of you.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Murray. Secretary Pirie,
welcome this morning, and we look forward to your statement.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. PIRIE, JR.
Mr. Pirie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. And good
morning, Senator Murray. I am glad to be back here once again.
As you say, I think it would be best if I simply summarize a
few points from my testimony.
On balance I think the budget that we have submitted to
Congress this time is the strongest one that we have put
forward during my 6-year tenure in this job.
There is good news in the area of housing. The Secretary of
Defense proposes to reduce the out-of-pocket housing expenses
for members who own or rent homes in the community. An increase
in the basic allowance for housing would cut out-of-pocket
expense from 19 percent to 15 percent in fiscal year 2001 and
eliminate it by fiscal year 2005. That will make housing more
affordable for the nearly three quarters of Navy and Marine
Corps families and the many single sailors and Marines who live
in private sector housing.
We have renewed our commitment to family housing
construction. We are asking you to approve six Navy and two
Marine Corps projects for the next fiscal year. These projects
would build a total of 861 homes, all of them in the United
States. And in keeping with our philosophy of fixing what we
own, nearly all of these replace deteriorated homes that we
still need but are beyond economical repair.
HOUSING
We are proceeding with our housing privatization efforts.
We have seven pilot projects that were previously authorized
and appropriated and are in various stages in the acquisition
process. Any necessary funding will come from prior year
appropriations. We are not asking for any new PPV funds in this
budget.
I think we are approaching success here. Later this year I
expect to provide Congress with the required notification of
our intent to award contracts for most of these PPV projects
because we have been slower than we hoped, we will not have all
the data we would like about how our Public-Private Ventures
(PPVs) will work. Nevertheless, I continue to believe they are
important to getting better housing sooner for our people, and
I ask your support for extending the PPV authority for another
5 years.
We are also exploring an initiative to dramatically improve
housing for our most junior sailors assigned to ships. When
deployed away from homeport, all sailors must endure bunk beds,
sharing cramped spaces with dozens of shipmates, and living out
of a small locker. When they return to homeport, their peers
who are married or assigned to aviation squadrons or submarines
get housing ashore. Shipboard E-1s through E-4s, however, must
continue to live aboard the ship in homeport.
The proposed new homeport ashore program would provide
these sailors with housing, either in a Bachelor Enlisted
Quarters (BEQ) or in the community, when their ship is in
homeport. In order to create space within the housing budget
for the rapid buildup of Bachelor Quarters (BQ) spaces that
would be required for this initiative, we would build new
spaces to the 2 plus 0 configuration rather than the 1 plus 1
that is the current Department of Defense (DOD) standard.
Ultimately we intend to return to the 1 plus 1 standard,
but in the meantime, we will have provided decent places for
our young bachelor sailors in homeport. As we work out the
details of implementing this initiative, we will keep the
committee informed.
I am very proud of our efforts to clean up closed bases and
get the property into the hands of local communities. Through
four rounds of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), we have a
total of 178 closures and realignments to accomplish. Only two
remain. Both will be completed next year. Cleanup and property
disposal are now the major focus in this activity.
With respect to BRAC funding, the apparent large increase
in funding requested in fiscal year 2001 requires some
explanation. Last year's advance appropriation scheme shifted
fiscal year 2000 funds to 2001 based on expected outlays in
military construction, family housing construction, and BRAC
accounts. The Congress rejected the idea of advanced
appropriations, but made us whole--for which I am indeed very
grateful--in fiscal year 2000 by restoring funds to the
military construction and family housing construction accounts.
BRAC
However, BRAC funding was not restored. This left our
fiscal year 2000 BRAC program severely short. We are doing our
best to work with communities to make do with much smaller than
planned fiscal year 2000 funds. The fiscal year 2001 funds are
critical to continue the work begun this year and get us--and
community redevelopment plans--back on track. Cleanup delays
will inevitably stretch our property disposal schedules and be
a major setback to community redevelopment plans.
We have accomplished two ``Section 334'' early transfers of
BRAC property. The former fleet industrial and supply center,
Oakland, California, transferred to the Port of Oakland in
June. This transfer is unique in that, with funding from us,
the Port will do the cleanup as part of their redevelopment
plans, saving both time and money for all parties.
We also transferred the former Naval Air Station, Memphis,
Tennessee, to the Millington Municipal Airport Authority. In
this case we will continue to do the cleanup but also in
concert with the community's redevelopment effort.
While we have avoided including a major irritant this year
such as advance funding for Military Construction (MILCON) and
family housing, there are aspects of our budget that may be
problematic. One such item is the lack of contingency funding
for MILCON and family housing. Now, we will certainly do our
best to manage our projects carefully, but inevitable fact of
life changes will confront us with the need to downscope
projects or reprogram for increased costs. I do not propose to
compromise on quality.
HISTORIC QUARTERS
Another issue that we are working but have not arrived at a
complete solution is that of historic and flag officer housing.
These historic buildings represent a part of our national
heritage, of which the Navy Department is the steward. We need
to preserve these places for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. As a general rule, these places are
difficult and expensive to maintain. There is a real question
in equity whether the family housing account should bear this
burden when we have shortages elsewhere.
The idea of creating a separate account, however, has
proved very unpopular. I have created a working group in the
Department of the Navy to seek a long-term solution, and I will
keep you informed also about our progress in that area. Ideas
are certainly welcome at any time.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure to work with the
members of this committee over the course of the last 6 years.
I am extremely grateful for your consideration both of the Navy
and its programs and of me personally, and I look forward to
continuing this dialogue. Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT B. PIRIE, JR.
Good day, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Robert B.
Pirie, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy (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 these areas:
--The infrastructure budget;
--Program highlights for family housing, military construction, real
property maintenance, and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC);
--Infrastructure efficiency efforts.
THE INFRASTRUCTURE BUDGET
A perspective
I am quite pleased with our fiscal year 2001 infrastructure budget.
It is, on balance, the strongest budget submitted to the Congress
during my nearly 7-year tenure in this position. Our military
construction, family housing, real property maintenance, and base
closure accounts are in sum above last year's budget request.
This budget builds on the significant additions supported by this
Committee in last year's budget; it represents a 2-percent increase
over last year's enacted level. The military construction budget
request is larger than at anytime since 1992; our family housing
construction request has not been exceeded since 1997; our base closure
account represents the largest single-year effort we have ever made to
clean up contamination on our closed bases, thereby helping communities
turn these bases into economic engines for local redevelopment and job
creation. We are embarking on a new quality of life initiative for our
shipboard Sailors.
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is outside of the infrastructure
budget, but it directly affects our ability to adequately house our
Sailors, Marines and their families. As you know, BAH is a housing
stipend paid to the military member. I strongly support the Secretary
of Defense's initiative to reduce out-of-pocket expenses, now 19
percent, to 15 percent in fiscal year 2001, and eliminate it entirely
by fiscal year 2005. The BAH increases will make housing more
affordable for our members and their families, and help reduce the
inequity between those living in government quarters (no out-of-pocket
expenses) and those living in the private sector.
This success at the budget table is a result of the continued
commitment to quality of life by the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief
of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. As the
Department of the Navy, and indeed the Department of Defense as a
whole, struggles to attain the proper balance between short-term needs
(e.g., readiness, personnel, quality of life) and long-term needs
(e.g., modernization of weapon systems), we are putting into place
strong programs to support our people where they live and where they
work.
Let me describe our budget highlights in more detail.
Compared with overall DON fiscal year 2000 budget
The Department of the Navy installation budget includes these
appropriations: Military Construction, Navy (MCON); Military
Construction, Naval Reserve (MCNR); Family Housing, Navy and Marine
Corps (FHN); Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC); and Environmental
Restoration, Navy. Base operations support and real property
maintenance functions are included in the Operation and Maintenance
accounts. In aggregate, our fiscal year 2001 installation program
totals $7.9 billion, or about 8.6 percent of the DON fiscal year 2000
budget of nearly $92 billion.
Compared with fiscal year 2000
Our fiscal year 2001 installation program (MCON, MCNR, FHN, BRAC)
of $2.5 billion is 7 percent more ($166 million) than the fiscal year
2000 enacted level of $2.34 billion, and 15 percent more ($329 million)
than our fiscal year 2000 budget request of $2.18 billion.
A large portion of this increase is in the BRAC account. It is the
remnant of last year's Advance Appropriation request.
You will recall that last year's budget request proposed the use of
Advance Appropriations for all Department of Defense construction
accounts, including BRAC. That budget request shifted large portions of
the fiscal year 2000 appropriation request to fiscal year 2001. About
half (i.e., $254 million) of the Department of the Navy's fiscal year
2000 BRAC budget request was moved to fiscal year 2001. The Congress
rejected the use of this financing technique, and added money to fully
fund military construction, and family housing construction and
improvement projects. However, no such funds were added to make the
BRAC account whole. The result is that we are left with a much smaller
BRAC program in fiscal year 2000 than we needed, and a seemingly high
BRAC request in fiscal year 2001. Nearly all of the BRAC funding is for
time-critical cleanup of contamination at closed bases to support
property disposal and community reuse efforts. Because of the
distortion caused by last year's Advance Appropriation request, I ask
that you look at our fiscal year 2001 BRAC program as a two-year
(fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001) window. I will explain in more
detail the importance of this funding and how we are managing program
execution later in my statement.
Our military construction (active and reserve) request, though
below last year's enacted level, is nearly on par with last year's
authorization request, which was highly leveraged due to Advance
Appropriations. Our fiscal year 2001 appropriation request of $769
million is the largest we have submitted during this Administration.
The Military Construction, Navy request comprises 49 projects totaling
$552 million for the Navy, and 19 projects totaling $130 million for
the Marine Corps. It also includes $8 million in unspecified minor
construction, and $63 million in planning and design. Most of the
projects are for operational, maintenance and training facilities,
barracks, and other quality of life projects. The Military
Construction, Naval Reserve request comprises six Navy projects
totaling $8 million and one Marine Corps project of $6.4 million. It
also includes $2 million in planning and design funds.
Our fiscal year 2000 Family Housing program is summarized in the
following table. We have renewed our commitment to the new construction
program as we proceed with our privatization efforts. Our budget
request includes funds for six Navy and two Marine Corps housing
construction projects. All are for enlisted personnel, and all located
in the United States. We are not requesting any funds in the Department
of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund, relying on prior year
construction and improvement funds to proceed with our pilot
privatization efforts. Our Family Housing Operations and Maintenance
request declines primarily due to inventory reductions of about 600
homes and reduced utility costs due to energy conservation measures.
The reduction in leasing is due to expected delays in individual leases
at six locations in Europe.
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
----------------------------------------
2001
2000 enacted requested 2001 homes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction................... $339.3 $362.8 ...........
New Construction........... [133.9] [159.3] 861
Improvements............... [187.7] [183.5] 2,292
Planning & Design.......... [17.6] [20.0]
Operations & Maintenance....... 741.4 739.9 ...........
Leasing........................ 145.3 142.7 7,446
----------------------------------------
Total Family Housing, 1,226 1,245 ...........
Navy & Marine Corps.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our fiscal year 2001 Real Property Maintenance (RPM) request of
$1.7 billion is $276 million above the fiscal year 2000 level. RPM
funds in the Operation and Maintenance account are for repairs,
preventive and recurring maintenance, minor construction and centrally
managed demolition. Despite putting more money into this program, I
must note that our backlog of Maintenance and Repair Projects is
projected to grow by $237 million, crossing the $4 billion threshold in
fiscal year 2001. The Department of Defense has not requested any funds
in fiscal year 2001 for the Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense
account.
Elimination of contingency funding
While there are many positive aspects of our program, two items
will lead to execution challenges. The Department of Defense has opted
to eliminate all contingency funding in our military construction,
family housing construction, and family housing improvement projects
for fiscal year 2001 and future years. A total of $52 million was cut
from our construction projects. Previously, the budget cost of each
project included a 5 percent allowance to cover construction
uncertainties such as unknown subsurface conditions, unfavorable bid
climate, material cost changes, or requirements that are discovered
after the design is completed. (As you know, the construction cost
estimates submitted in the budget are based on having completed at
least 35 percent of the design of the project or parametric cost
estimates, not 100 percent design.)
The Department of Defense deleted contingency in the construction
accounts in part because of the concerns expressed by the Congress last
year that contingency funds were being used to ``gold plate'' projects.
That is not the case.
I believe the absence of contingency funds may compromise our
ability to maintain full project scope, high construction standards, or
ability to execute all fiscal year 2001 authorized projects. We will
pursue innovative acquisition strategies and implement even more
stringent management of cost growth to execute within available funds.
However, in construction, as in life, we cannot predict the unforeseen.
Across-the-board rescission
The Consolidated Appropriations Act 1999 (Public Law 106-113)
directed an across the board rescission of fiscal year 2000
appropriated funds which, for the Department of Defense, amounted to
0.52 percent after exclusion of military pay accounts.
We have applied this reduction with an eye to preserving maximum
execution flexibility. In the military construction appropriations, an
across the board reduction was taken against all construction projects
to ensure no single project was significantly impacted or cancelled. We
hope our design build construction efforts can produce enough savings
to offset this reduction.
The allocation for our Operation and Maintenance accounts, however,
is more problematic. These accounts total $26.4 billion in fiscal year
2000. A number of options were evaluated by the Secretary of the Navy.
All were troublesome. The nature of Operation and Maintenance makes
targeting specific programs and separating least critical funding very
difficult. Everything funded in these appropriations is in some way
connected to force readiness. In the end, the decision was made to
target the entire $136 million O&M rescission to the real property
maintenance accounts. This action avoids immediate readiness problems,
and can be done with the least risk of reduction-in-force or furloughs.
It also provides the greatest potential for amelioration during the
course of the year or even late in the year if additional assets or
resources become available.
Nonetheless, this decision amounts to a 9 percent reduction in
fiscal year 2000 Real Property Maintenance funds, and clearly
contributes to the growth in the backlog of maintenance and repairs
previously mentioned. All types of facilities, including barracks and
other quality of life facilities, will be impacted. The impact will
generally be greater on the Navy than the Marine Corps, as the Navy has
more facilities, and they tend to be in worse condition as measured by
facility readiness C-ratings \1\ and the size of the critical backlog
of repairs. The fiscal year 2001 budget is sufficient to fund Navy
mission critical facilities (waterfront, airport, training, bachelor
housing, and utilities) to a C-2 facility readiness level, while all
other facilities (e.g., supply, administrative, etc.) are funded to C-3
readiness. Unless additional Real Property Maintenance funds are found,
even these mission critical facilities will be funded to a C-3
readiness condition this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A C rating refers to the facility condition criteria used as
part of the overall readiness rating. It is based on subjective and
objective criteria unique to that type of facility (e.g., criteria for
air operations includes a pavement condition index, while port
operations include dredge depth vs. design depth at berth). Generally,
C-2 means operations are impacted 5-10 percent of the time. C-3 means
operations are impacted 10-20 percent of the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The across-the-board reduction to the Family Housing Operation and
Maintenance account was also applied to maintenance and repair.
FAMILY HOUSING
The family housing triad
Our family housing strategy consists of a triad:
--access to housing in communities surrounding our bases;
--use of traditional military construction and leasing funds to
improve or acquire housing either on base or in the community;
and
--developing public/private ventures to leverage private sector
capital to provide housing that is available on a priority
basis to our members.
We traditionally 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. They are aggressively pursuing rental
agreements with private sector property owners to house Navy and Marine
Corps families. In fiscal year 1999, about 74 percent of Navy families
and 65 percent of Marine Corps families worldwide lived in a home they
owned or rented in the community. The substantial pay raise enacted
last year, combined with the proposed 3.7 percent pay raise and BAH
increases included in the fiscal year 2001 budget, will certainly make
housing more affordable for our members assigned at U.S. locations.
Fix what we own
Even with full implementation of BAH, there will remain many
locations where there are not enough suitable \2\ 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 1999, the Navy had an inventory of 60,515 homes worldwide
and the Marine Corps had 22,780 homes. We also lease homes both here in
the United States and abroad. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the Navy
had about 5,200 and the Marine Corps had 1,000 leased homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Suitability is based on the following DOD criteria: location
(within one hour commute); cost (rent, utilities, etc. 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 use family housing
new construction funds when an economic analysis indicates that
replacement construction is the more viable alternative. Our fiscal
year 2001 program provides for the construction of 861 homes, a 22-
percent increase over the enacted fiscal year 2000 level. This funding
level demonstrates that we will continue to use housing new
construction funds as a tool to revitalize our inventory of government
owned homes.
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Location Homes Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAS Lemoore, CA................................... 160 $27.8
CNB Pearl Harbor, HI (Hale Moku).................. 98 22.2
CNB Pearl Harbor, HI (Pearl City)................. 62 14.2
CNB Pearl Harbor, HI (Radford Terrace)............ 112 23.7
NAS Brunswick, ME \1\............................. 168 18.7
NAS Whidbey Island, WA \2\........................ 98 16.9
---------------------
Subtotal Navy............................... 698 123.5
---------------------
MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, CA....................... 79 13.9
MCB Kaneohe Bay, HI............................... 84 21.9
---------------------
Subtotal Marine Corps....................... 163 35.8
=====================
Total....................................... 861 159.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 16 new homes and 152 replacement homes.
\2\ Includes 2 new homes and 96 replacement homes.
Using traditional family housing funds, our fiscal year 2001
improvement program renovates 1,781 Navy homes at 12 locations inside
and two locations outside the United States at a cost of $155 million.
It also renovates 511 Marine Corps homes at 2 locations inside and 1
outside the United States at a cost of $28 million.
Examples of housing improvement projects include:
--$18.7 million for 184 enlisted homes at Naval Sub Base, New London,
CT. This project will replace kitchens and baths; upgrade
electrical and plumbing systems; abate lead and asbestos;
install new vinyl siding; replace roofs, doors, and windows;
replace the heating system; provide neighborhood repairs.
--$25.0 million for 332 enlisted and officer homes at Marine Corps
Base, Camp Pendleton, CA. This project will upgrade fixtures
and electrical, plumbing and mechanical systems; perform
structural, architectural and site improvements; allow interior
and exterior repairs; install fire suppression systems; and put
in new landscaping.
Public/Private ventures
As the members of this Committee recognize, the pace of new and
replacement construction and improvements would not let us eliminate
the 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 5-year pilot program that expires next year, we
can provide cash, direct loans and loan guarantees, and differential
lease payments (DLP). We can also convey land or lease 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 a few years ago, our
objective was to use these tools to solve a 30-year housing problem in
10 years. Using a mix of family housing construction, improvement funds
and public/private ventures, both the Navy and the Marine Corps remain
on track to meet the Defense Planning Guidance goal to eliminate the
repair/improvement backlog by fiscal year 2010.
Pilot Project PPVs
These powerful new tools provide exciting new opportunities, and
prompted a mountain of dialogue on how best to apply them. All of us--
the Congress, the Department of the Navy, and private developers--share
the same goal: to provide appropriate, affordable housing for all Navy
and Marine Corps members and their families and to operate and maintain
it in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.
We have worked extremely hard to build consensus across many
constituencies within the Navy and the Marine Corps--from the Sailor or
Marine on the deckplate to the senior leadership at Fleet headquarters
and at the Pentagon; to developers; and to the members of the
Authorization and Appropriation Committees who must review and endorse
a PPV project before we can award it. All of us want to do the right
thing with these new tools.
There are many paths to success. Last year, we used the fiscal year
1996 authorities to institute differential lease payments (DLPs) in our
existing projects in Texas and Washington State to ``buy down'' rents
so that member's BAH can fully cover their rents and average utilities.
The first monthly payments were made to the PPV partnership (not the
member) in October 1999, amounting to about $200 per month for an E-5.
With the new BAH initiative, we expect that the DLP payments for these
units will be reduced. We are pleased with the performance of these
early projects.
We are proceeding with a pilot project approach for five Navy and
four Marine Corps projects, seven of which are in various stages in the
acquisition process. These projects provide a mix of backlog reduction
and deficit reduction:
--Four projects (Everett 2, Kingsville 2, Albany, Camp Pendleton) are
in exclusive negotiations with a single entity;
--Three projects (San Diego, South Texas, New Orleans) are in, or
about to enter, the technical proposal/evaluation phase;
--Two projects are in internal review. Congressional notification was
given in June to issue a solicitation at both Stewart Army
SubPost in Newburgh, NY and Chicopee, MA. We are planning to
re-notify the Committees of our plan to move forward with the
Stewart project, but defer Chicopee pending a Marine Corps
review of requirements. We also expect to provide notification
of our intent to issue a solicitation for a Beaufort/Parris
Island project in the near future.
We are continuing to look at other opportunities to either reduce
the shortage of family housing or revitalize our existing inventory
through the use of the privatization authorities. We will continue to
propose additional locations that we determine to be feasible
privatization candidates.
I believe we are on the cusp of providing the required notification
to the Congress of our intent to award contracts for most of these
projects this year. I am optimistic that our first notification may
occur this spring for Kingsville 2. We have the necessary funds from
prior year appropriations to proceed with these projects. The Navy and
the Marine Corps are retaining $89 million/$39 million respectively to
fund these pilot projects. We have released all other prior year family
housing construction and improvement funds. All of the previously held
projects are scheduled for award before the end of this fiscal year.
New BAH rate impact on housing
The Secretary of Defense's BAH initiative represents a major
turning point in our efforts to improve living conditions for our
single and married Sailors, Marines, and their families. It will
directly affect almost three-quarters of Navy and Marine Corps families
and approximately 27 percent of our single Sailors and Marines who live
in private sector housing.
In the short-term, the BAH increase will influence the dynamics of
rental income streams for PPV projects, while also making private
sector housing more affordable. We have initiated studies to help us
analyze the long-term impacts of this initiative on the supply and
demand for military housing. Our first opportunity to address possible
impacts will be when we provide the Family Housing Master Plans due to
the Congress in July. These master plans will provide a base-by-base
identification of how we will meet the goal to eliminate our inadequate
family housing units by fiscal year 2010. A note of caution: we may be
able to model outcomes based on assumptions about supply and demand,
but the real effects will have to await how individual and market
forces react. Our ultimate objective is to strike the appropriate
balance between reliance on the private sector and, where necessary,
the provision of government quarters.
Legislation to extend the fiscal year 1996 PPV authorities
The existing PPV authorities implemented in the Fiscal Year 1996
Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 104-106) expire in February 2001.
The Department of Defense is submitting legislation to extend these
authorities for another five years. I ask your support for this
extension. We will need PPVs in our toolbox to accomplish the DOD goal
to eliminate the backlog of inadequate homes by fiscal year 2010. We
continue the staff work necessary to develop PPV family and bachelor
housing projects for the future.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Our military construction program continues our approach of
budgeting for those projects that meet the highest priority of
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, 59 percent of the active and reserve
military construction program for the Navy and 75 percent for the
Marine Corps is dedicated to replacement and modernization projects.
Phased funded projects
I should point out that four projects in our fiscal year 2001
program have a total cost above $50 million, and under existing
Department of Defense criteria, are phased funded over two or more
years. We ask for full authorization for each project in the first
year, and request in appropriations language to fund fiscal year 2001
and subsequent increments needed to completed these projects. We
commonly resort to phase funding pier replacement projects because they
are very expensive, and require a lengthy construction period. Many of
our piers and wharves were built in the 1940s, and cannot support the
deep draft, power intensive ships in the Fleet today. We must rebuild
them to meet the needs of today and tomorrow. The fiscal year 2001
program includes:
--$12.8 million to complete the second increment of a berthing wharf
at Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego, CA. Phase one was
funded in the fiscal year 2000 budget;
--$35.7 million for the first of two increments for a $53.2 million
repair pier at Naval Station San Diego, CA;
--$38 million for the first of two increments for a $62.5 million
pier replacement at Naval Ship Yard Bremerton, Puget Sound, WA;
--$35.6 million for the second of three increments of a $86 million
CINCPAC headquarters at Camp HM Smith, HI. Phase one was funded
in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
Operational and training facilities
Our construction program funds 26 \3\ operational facilities
totaling $268 million. Examples include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Includes the phased funded projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Taxiway extension and lights at Naval Air Station Norfolk, VA.--
This $6.4 million project provides a full-length taxiway so
that large, ordnance laden aircraft no longer have to taxi past
an air passenger terminal, and updates approach landing lights
to meet Federal Aviation Administration criteria.
--Combat Aircraft Loading Apron at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma,
AZ.--This $8.2 million project provides an efficient, safe, and
properly sized aircraft ordnance loading/unloading area,
resolving a flight safety operations waiver.
There are also seven training projects totaling $67 million.
Examples include:
--Physical Training Facility at Naval Training Center, Great Lakes,
IL.--This $35.0 million project will provide an indoor track,
fitness, aerobics and free weight areas, replacing several
buildings constructed in the early 1940s that have serious
structural flaws.
--Urban Assault Course at Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center,
Twentynine Palms, CA.--This $2.1 million project will construct
a live fire range with simulation capability to support urban
assault training now being conducted with blank ammunition.
Maintenance, storage, and compliance facilities
There are 16 maintenance and storage projects totaling $99 million.
Examples include:
--Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at Naval Station, Norfolk VA.--This
$13.3 million project is the third of five projects planned to
replace nine old WW II maintenance hangars designed for
aircraft no longer used by the Navy.
--Operations/Maintenance/Storage Facility at Camp Lejeune, NC.--This
$14.0 million project replaces five buildings constructed in
the late 1940's that have inadequate space, insufficient
electrical power, and is without climate control or indoor
plumbing.
There is one environmental compliance project and two safety
projects which together total $19 million. One example is:
--Chemical Metallurgical Laboratory at Naval Shipyard Bremerton,
WA.--This $9.4 million project consolidates functions now
performed in two trailers and four buildings constructed more
than 60 years ago. These buildings compromise laboratory
testing functions, have numerous safety violations, and
resulted in the laboratory operations to not be reaccredited by
the American Industrial Hygiene Association.
Quality of life
There are important quality of life projects included in our fiscal
year 2001 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+0 configuration for junior enlisted, i.e., two persons per
room with a shared bath. This allows the Marine Corps to foster team
building and build unit cohesion. The 1+1 standard does not apply to
recruits, students, and transients. Overseas locations may also have
unique considerations.
The Navy has seven BQ projects totaling $205 million.
--Four projects are being built to the 2+0 configuration for
permanent party enlisted personnel. They provide a total of 912
bed spaces \4\. These projects are located at Naval Air Station
Lemoore, CA; Naval Support Activity Naples, Italy; Naval
Station Pearl Harbor, HI; and at an undisclosed location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Bed spaces reflects maximum capacity for E1--E4 personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--One project at Norfolk Naval Shipyard is being built to the 2+0
configuration for transients. It provides 400 bed spaces.
--Two open bay projects at Naval Recruit Training Center Great Lakes,
IL that will provide 2,112 bed spaces for recruits.
The Marine Corps has three BQ projects totaling $50 million:
Washington Marine Barracks, Washington, D.C.; Marine Corps Base Kaneohe
Bay, HI; Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC. All three Marine Corps
projects are being built to the 2+0 standard. They provide a total of
1,032 bed spaces for junior enlisted personnel.
There are also five other quality of life projects totaling $51
million in the fiscal year 2001 program. Examples include:
--Navy Museum Annex at the Washington Navy Yard, Washington DC.--The
Navy museum now only has sufficient space to display U.S. Naval
artifacts from Revolutionary times through WW II. This $2.4
million project will provide permanent exhibit space to safely
display and preserve Cold War, Korean War, and Vietnam
artifacts. This is the official museum of the Navy Service,
with over 400,000 visitors per year.
--Child Development Center, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC.--This
$4.4 million project will provide affordable on-base child care
facilities for 305 children.
Navy homeport ashore program
In our continued commitment to improve the quality of life of our
Sailors, the Navy is addressing one of its most pressing challenges--
the 25,000 E-1 through E-4 enlisted unaccompanied Sailors who now live
aboard ship when in homeport \5\. Studies, surveys, and my own personal
observation have shown that these young Sailors have the worst
accommodations in the Department of Defense. When deployed, these
Sailors have no choice but to endure sleeping in bunk beds in cramped
spaces with dozens of their shipmates, with little more than a small
locker to store their personal belongings. When the ship returns to
homeport, these Sailors must continue to live aboard ship. In contrast,
unaccompanied E-1 through E-4s assigned to aviation squadrons or
submarines live aboard ship when deployed, but merit BEQ spaces when
the ship is in homeport. A 1999 Navy Quality of Life Domain Study
concluded that shipboard life and standards of living are major
dissatisfiers for target retention groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Another 15,000 shipboard E-1 through E-4 personnel are deployed
with their ships at any given time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations have
committed to developing a Homeport Ashore program that will provide
these Sailors accommodations, either in a BEQ or in the community, when
their assigned ship is in homeport. We have a pilot project underway at
Naval Base Pearl Harbor, HI, where a unique combination of recent fleet
reductions, a large initial inventory of BEQ spaces, and a desire of
more senior enlisted to live in the community, has made BEQ spaces
available. So far about 900 shipboard E-1 through E-4 at Pearl Harbor
have ``moved ashore'' into BEQ spaces, with plans to house the rest
ashore by this summer. Initial results are extremely positive.
The Navy remains committed to providing housing that meets the
``1+1'' barracks construction standards. As an interim step to kick
start the Homeport Ashore effort, my office granted a waiver to use the
``2+0'' configuration to construct the fiscal year 2001 Navy BQ
projects. Because ``2+0'' spaces cost about one third less than
``1+1,'' we were able to provide spaces for more than 400 single
Sailors than we would have been able to do under the ``1+1'' standard.
These ``2+0'' spaces would be converted in the future to equivalent
``1+1'' spaces through assignment policy.
While I am pleased to announce this broad commitment, there are key
aspects that must still be resolved. I will keep the Committee informed
on our progress with this important quality of life initiative:
--Legislation is needed to pay BAH to E-4s assigned to large ships if
adequate quarters ashore are not available.
--An implementation plan is being developed to address timing,
phasing, and funding approaches. This plan is to be completed
by this summer.
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
a total of 178 actions consisting of 46 major closures, 89 minor
closures, and 43 realignments.
We will complete the actual closure and realignment of the bases by
the statutory deadline of July, 2001--97 percent are already completed.
Only two remain:
--Naval Management Systems Support Office Chesapeake, VA will close
in March 2001;
--Naval Sea Systems Command, Arlington, VA will realign to the
Washington Navy Yard in July 2001.
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. We are
reaping the financial rewards of our past investments: as of the end of
fiscal year 1999, we had spent $9.1 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 $10.5 billion from no longer having to operate,
maintain, and staff these bases. The result is a net savings of $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 achieved 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
Our main focus is now on finishing environmental cleanup and
completing property disposal. This is no easy task. We have already
spent more than $1 billion through fiscal year 1999 on environmental
work at our BRAC bases for environmental baseline studies to identify
potential contaminated sites and assess the nature and extent of
contamination prior to doing the cleanup, removing underground storage
tanks, and closing hazardous material storage facilities.
Each base has established a BRAC cleanup team composed of remedial
managers from the Navy, the State, and the Environmental Protection
Agency to review, prioritize, and expedite the necessary cleanup
consistent with reuse plans. We recognize the dynamics of reuse and
stand prepared to phase our cleanup plans as needed to support a
community's redevelopment 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). Four years ago, 65 percent of all BRAC acres were
environmentally suitable for transfer, compared to 89 percent as of the
end of fiscal year 1999. Four years ago, 28 percent of BRAC property
had not been completely evaluated, compared to only 5 percent as of the
end of fiscal year 1999.
There are about 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
environmental regulator subsequently concurs. As of the end of fiscal
year 1999, we had achieved RIP/RC status at 56 percent of all BRAC
sites. By the end of fiscal year 2001, when BRAC ends, we expect to
have completed cleanup at 88 percent of all BRAC sites. Cleanup at the
remaining sites will extend through fiscal year 2010.
We are using promising cleanup technologies and as studies reach
completion, are finding that for a number of sites, monitored natural
processes will control and eliminate the contaminants. 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 1999, it was $1.2 billion. The CTC reduction of $1.6
billion is the result of execution of $1.12 billion in appropriated
funds and $480 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
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
necessary, to protect human health and the environment. This authority
does not relieve us from full compliance with CERCLA.
I am pleased to report that we completed two early transfers of
BRAC property under this authority last year:
--The former Fleet Industrial and Supply Center Oakland, CA was
conveyed to the Port of Oakland in June 1999. The conveyance
involved the entire main site comprising 528 acres, including
submerged land. This transfer is unique in that Navy contracted
with the Port of Oakland to do the cleanup. The Port was able
to receive title to the property four years earlier than
planned, allowing it to integrate clean up with its commercial
development. This opportunity for the Port to begin
construction early saved both the Navy and the Port millions of
dollars, and greatly enhanced the Port's economic development.
The Port assumed responsibility for the entire cleanup and
long-term monitoring, buying insurance to cap its environmental
cleanup costs. The Navy remains responsible under CERCLA only
for ``catastrophic'' unforeseen cleanup, if any are
encountered.
--The former Naval Air Station Memphis, TN was conveyed to the
Millington Municipal Airport Authority in December 1999. This
conveyance, which involves 142 acres to be used for airfield
operations at the municipal airport, occurred three years
earlier than initially envisioned. The site contains residual
trichloroethylene groundwater contamination from solvents used
in past Navy aircraft operations. The Navy continues to conduct
the cleanup.
Nearly a dozen other early transfer candidates are being evaluated,
including portions of Naval Station Barber's Point, HI; Naval Air
Station, Guam; and Naval Shipyard Mare Island, CA. At these sites and
others, the necessary documents (e.g., Finding of Suitability for Early
Transfer; National Environmental Policy Act Record of Decision) are
complete or nearly complete. Local Redevelopment Authorities and
environmental regulators are fully engaged in the process. I am
optimistic we will accomplish several more early transfers this year.
Advance appropriation aftermath
I have already explained that the apparent increase in fiscal year
2001 BRAC funds is due to the Department of Defense shifting half of
the planned fiscal year 2000 BRAC funds to fiscal year 2001 prior to
submission of the fiscal year 2000 budget. We have kept that increment
of fiscal year 2000 funds in the fiscal year 2001 column of this
budget, and view it as critical to completing cleanups in support of
community reuse efforts.
We are dealing as best as we can with the $197 million available in
fiscal year 2000, which, after other congressional reductions, is less
than half of what we had planned for execution. We notified regulators
and local redevelopment authorities of the funding situation, and are
working with them to make the best allocation of available resources.
We are seeking to recoup prior year unobligated or unexpended funds in
all BRAC accounts and realign them to pressing BRAC environmental
fiscal year 2000 needs. This is a painstaking process of reviewing and
tracking accounting records for individual projects through different
accounting systems. We have recovered and reapplied $21 million to
date, but I am not optimistic there is much more to be had. We are also
re-phasing our contract work orders into smaller, but more numerous
task orders. This action will increase work that we can get underway,
but also raises administrative costs for both the Navy and the
contractor.
Despite these actions, we are already experiencing cleanup delays
at some of our bases. Loss of the fiscal year 2001 funds will slow
cleanups, requiring us to stretch out property disposal plans and
schedules, and limit promising opportunities for early property
transfers. The greatest burden, however, will be on the BRAC
communities' redevelopment plans and time frames. They have made
tremendous strides to prepare mature and realistic redevelopment plans
that will be seriously undermined by cleanup and disposal delays.
Property reuse
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires that
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). All disposal RODs should be
completed this calendar year except for one (Naval Activities, Guam)
which is scheduled for September 2001.
As the Local Redevelopment Authorities develop and refine their
reuse plans, we strive 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 1999, we had approximately 125 FOSLs in place.
At the end of fiscal year 1999, we had 121 interim leases in place
between the Navy and LRAs, plus 4 Leases in Furtherance of Conveyance.
Leased property is being used for a variety of purposes: port usage,
movie production, steel fabrication, general manufacturing and repair,
education, housing, child care, shipbreaking, and police facilities.
These leases have created several thousand jobs to help communities
recover from the loss of the Navy and the Marine Corps presence. The
leases include protection and property maintenance clauses and generate
significant revenue for the LRAs.
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 covering 166 thousand acres at 91 BRAC bases. Each BRAC
base has a disposal strategy tailored for that base that incorporates
LRA reuse plans with environmental cleanup timetables, NEPA
documentation, conveyance plans and schedules.
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 1999, we had completed 146 FOSTs
covering nearly 20,000 acres.
Through the end of fiscal year 1999, we had conveyed through
economic development conveyances, negotiated sales, public sales, or
Public Benefit Transfer over 1,850 acres.
After a base closes, disposal of the base closure property presents
the most complex challenge. Section 2821 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), amended the
Department of Defense's Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) authority
to give us the authority to transfer property to local redevelopment
authorities for no consideration for job creation purposes. Section
2821 also provides authority to modify previously approved EDC
agreements if a change in economic circumstances necessitates such a
modification. Although we expect many of the LRAs to apply for a ``no
cost'' EDC of our remaining bases, this will only expedite disposal of
base closure property to a certain extent. LRAs must still satisfy
certain regulatory criteria to acquire property by way of an EDC, and
the real key to disposal of BRAC property is environmental remediation
of the property.
INFRASTRUCTURE EFFICIENCY EFFORTS
Need for two more rounds of BRAC
I have discussed our investment plans to improve our existing
infrastructure. However, 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, the National Defense Panel, and an
April 1998 DOD Report to Congress all concluded that more rounds of
BRAC are required to further shrink the military infrastructure. Our
estimates show that DON infrastructure has only decreased 17 percent
since the first round of BRAC, compared to a 40 percent reduction in
ships and a 30 percent reduction in Sailors.
I again ask your support for two more BRAC rounds.
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. Many of these initiatives
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
putting money in the budget to pursue the most promising initiatives. A
group of senior flag officers and senior executives representing the
Fleet, System Commands, and headquarters elements of the Navy, Marine
Corps, and Secretariat meet periodically to review and coordinate
initiatives.
Here are some examples:
Strategic Sourcing.--Our outsourcing efforts have evolved to one
based on Strategic Sourcing. In short, we consider eliminating,
consolidating, restructuring, or re-engineering our activities and
process before we make a sourcing decision (i.e., retain in-house or
contract out) via the traditional Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-76 procedure. After submission of the fiscal year 2000
President's Budget, the Department of the Navy refined its objectives
and identified in excess of 90,000 civilian and military positions to
be reviewed as part of Strategic Sourcing. We hope to achieve annual
net savings of $1.7 billion by fiscal year 2005. One good example is in
the area of child care, where laws and regulations require higher
professional development standards than are often competitively
available. Over 50 percent of our child development program employees
are military spouses who form a well trained, transferable pool of
invested talent. We are using the wealth of data previously accumulated
to best re-engineer our child care centers in efforts to meet the DOD
child care goals and still reduce cost.
Demolition.--The demolition program eliminates aging, unneeded and
often unsightly facilities and their associated operating and
maintenance costs. The Navy plans to demolish over 9.9 million square
feet by fiscal year 2002, and the Marine Corps 2.2 million square feet
by fiscal year 2000. Both the Navy and the Marine Corps have centrally
managed demolition programs with funds included in Real Property
Maintenance Operations and Maintenance accounts. Through the end of
fiscal year 1999, the Navy has invested about $57 million and the
Marine Corps $10.8 million to demolish 4.6 million and 1.5 million
square feet of space respectively. The Navy added an additional $9
million for demolition in the budget, for a total of $39 million in
fiscal year 2001. The Marine Corps has budgeted $5 million in fiscal
year 2001 to continue its demolition efforts. One good example is the
demolition last year of an old, vacant reserve center in Youngstown,
OH. The center was in a residential neighborhood across the street from
a high school. It was a public eyesore, a security/problem, and a
safety hazard for the community. After demolition, the real estate was
returned to the City.
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 Department
of the Navy has a total of 998 systems at 122 activities worldwide.
There are three key Department of Defense milestones: a determination
by 30 September 2000 of which utility systems to try to privatize;
issue all Requests for Proposals by 30 September 2001; and award all
contracts by 30 September 2003. We are making good progress on this
effort. The first to be privatized was Refuse Derived Fuel Power Plant
at Naval Shipyard Norfolk, VA in July 1999.
Claimant Consolidation/Regionalization of Base Operating Support
(BOS).--Effective 1 October 1998, the Navy consolidated 18 major
commands with BOS responsibilities to 8. Regional BOS Commands have
been established and BOS delivery services have been standardized.
Regional planning is underway, better accounting systems are being
evaluated, and better business process metrics are being developed.
This initiative will have a powerful synergistic effect with our
Strategic Sourcing efforts.
Energy Efficiency.--Executive Order 13123 requires federal agencies
to reduce energy consumption 30 percent by fiscal year 2005 and 35
percent by fiscal year 2010, using fiscal year 1985 as the baseline. To
meet the fiscal year 2005 goal, we must cut consumption at a rate of
1.5 percent per year, and then at a rate of 1 percent per year from
fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010. I am pleased to say that we
have met and exceeded that benchmark with a cumulative reduction of 22
percent through fiscal year 1999. We are using a variety of efficiency
technologies and energy awareness programs, combined with internal and
third party financing available through Demand-side Management and
Energy Savings Performance Contracts to reduce energy consumption to
meet these goals.
Smart Base.--Smart Base brings off-the-shelf modern technology and
business practices to Navy needs. One example is the PortMaster
automated port operations management system. It provides a tool for the
regional commander to manage all port operations while improving
services and scheduling, yet lowers manpower needs. This system has
been deployed through the mid-Atlantic region and is being expanded to
airfield operations.
Smart Work.--Like Smart Base, this initiative substitutes capital
for labor with the goal of reserving Sailor and Marine time for high
value-added work and combat training. Off the shelf tools can ensure
safe, healthy, and efficient working conditions. One example is
construction of a sewage line to connect ships in port at Gaeta, Italy
to the municipal sewage system, replacing the use of contract barges,
with a return on investment in less than one year.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I believe the DON infrastructure program is in a
strong position as we begin the new millennium. Our infrastructure
budget request for fiscal year 2001 is the best it has been during my
tenure. We have robust military construction and family housing
construction programs that are focused on fixing what we own. I believe
that we will soon be bringing notification to this Committee and the
other Military Construction Committee of our intent to award PPV
contracts. We have embarked on a new quality of life initiative aimed
at improving the living conditions of junior enlisted Sailors assigned
to ships. We have preserved the increment of fiscal year 2000 BRAC
environmental funds that shifted to fiscal year 2001 during last year's
proposed use of Advanced Appropriations to accomplish time critical
cleanups to support community reuse and redevelopment of closed BRAC
bases. We are proceeding with numerous promising initiatives to make
our infrastructure more responsive and less costly.
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 through the remainder of the
Administration.
CONTINGENCY
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Let us maybe look
into a little further, with the loss of the contingency funds,
we realize those contingency funds are used in some areas. The
loss of--the reduction could change the overall scope of things
because we have always used those contingency funds in some
areas where we incurred overruns. How would you deal with that?
Have you given that any thought, as we know there is less
dollars there now?
Mr. Pirie. While the horseback answer is that when we run
into unforeseen contingencies--and all of them are unforeseen--
we will be faced with a choice of either downscoping the
project or reducing the quality of the construction or coming
back to you for a reprogramming, and a large outburst of
reprogramming actions will clog up the works between here and
the other side of the river, it seems to me, and that is not a
particularly desirable situation. Admiral Smith will actually
have to deal with this problem on the ground. Perhaps he can
add to that.
Admiral Smith. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, as the
execution agent, as the head of Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC) for the military construction program, the
subject concerns me and my staff worldwide very greatly. I
spent a lot of time looking at the construction industry, and I
would tell you that industry standard cost growth on new
construction runs somewhere between 12 and 15 percent,
depending on where in the United States you are.
Historically both the Corps of Engineers and those of us in
the Navy at NAVFAC have run between 8 and 9 percent cost
growth. We are trying new and innovative contracting strategies
such as design build that can bring cost growth down to 4 to 5
percent. The problem is virtually no one can run a new
construction project with zero percent cost growth.
Senator Burns. Tell me, will the loss of these funds slow
up execution?
Admiral Smith. Ultimately, sir, I would expect that will
happen, and I say that because as Secretary Pirie said, we do
not want to compromise scope, we do not want to compromise
quality, which will lead us ultimately to reprogrammings. We
have been very fortunate almost over the last decade in getting
good bids from the construction industry, but, of course,
construction, like the rest of the economy, is booming right
now, and I do not think we can rely on just getting good bids
to save us for the foreseeable future.
Senator Burns. Last year you informed us on the committee
the Navy spent approximately 1.7 to 1.8 percent of its plant
replacement value per year on facility maintenance. We had
quite an experience of upgrades in I think the last 2 years.
Has that number changed? Will you still operate in that
particular 1.7-1.8 percent range?
Mr. Pirie. I think that is about the value. Our real
property maintenance budget for fiscal year 2001 is, in fact,
an increase over prior years, and I think it is headed--we are
headed towards 2 percent.
VIEQUES
Senator Burns. Tell me about the situation in Puerto Rico,
the current situation there with respect to the island and the
announcement that was made yesterday.
Mr. Pirie. The announcement made yesterday has to do with
the conveyance of 110 acres to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to be later conveyed to the Puerto Rican
airport facility, and it has to do with airport expansion. It
was an action that was in the works, has been in the works for
several years, and was ready to go before the unfortunate
incidents of the last year. But it was put on hold until the
resolution of the Vieques controversy could be reached. So it
really--while we think it is an expression of goodwill to turn
this over and expand the Vieques airport, it really was an
action that was already in train.
Senator Burns. Now, also in conjunction with that, I
understand we have got to come up with $40 million in economic
development funding, and that is dependent on the resumption of
training. Now, I understand--I just asked Sid here where that
$40 million was coming from, and I guess that is going to come
out of supplemental, but it is going to come out of other
places than military construction, which I was worried about
that, coming in this morning.
Mr. Pirie. As I understand it, it is not going to come out
of the defense budget at all but will be in the Department of
Commerce budget.
Senator Burns. Tell me, the directive allows no more than
90 days of annual training down there. Is 90 days enough?
Mr. Pirie. I am not the expert in this area. I know that
the Commandant and the Chief of Naval Operations were in these
negotiations hard and fast every minute. I think it is a
judgment, it is fair to say, that has been made by them. I
would defer to my military colleagues.
Senator Burns. Admiral, would you like to comment? Does
anybody want to comment on that?
Admiral Smith. No, sir. Again, as the civil engineer, I
know the Chief of Naval Operations was personally involved in
those negotiations.
Mr. Pirie. And the Commandant of the Marine Corps as well.
General Mashburn. The Commandant was deeply involved.
Senator Burns. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pirie, I noted
in my opening remarks that I was interested in the Navy's
homeport ashore initiative you talked about. That is of
particular interest to me as Naval Station Everett is and
obviously will continue to be a carrier homeport, but it is
also of interest to me in the broader impact that this
initiative will have on recruitment, retention, and quality of
life factors. Would you explain to us how this program is going
to work and what impact it will have on homeport communities
like Everett?
HOMEPORT ASHORE
Mr. Pirie. What we would like to do is build enough BQ
spaces so that we can accommodate something approximating
20,000 single sailors in pay grades E-1 through E-4 that are on
ships who have no shore accommodation now when they're in
homeport. So the real question is can we accelerate the
building of BQs within our limited resources to make that
happen. The scheme that we have come up with involves backing
off the 1 plus 1 standard, which is the current DOD standard,
to a 2 plus 0 standard, using the resources that are saved in
that way to accelerate the building of these BQs.
The first two of them are, in fact, in the fiscal year 2001
budget. We are currently--I do not want to use the word haggle,
but we are currently negotiating within the Department of the
Navy how fast we can do this. I, of course, want to do it as
fast as we possibly can. Then there is a question about the
phasing of who benefits first. Do we accommodate our shore
deficit with these BQs first or do we start moving the sailors
off the ships now? I think we will do a little of both.
Senator Murray. Do you know how many sailors would be
affected?
Mr. Pirie. I think it is on the order of between 16,000 and
20,000 sailors. It is--I think it is an important move.
Senator Murray. Do you know how much it will cost?
Mr. Pirie. I have seen various estimates, and it really
depends on how fast we want to do it. I have seen estimates
that would increase our BQ requirements by something like $80
million a year. That is the fast track. I would like to see the
fast track. There is a real question inside the Navy Department
about priorities and whether we can break loose that much
money.
Senator Murray. I am very interested in this. Hopefully we
will work toward that, assuming no disparities in the basic
allowances for housing, it has caused a lot of concern in my
home state of Washington. I understand that Secretary Cohen has
ordered an end to the disparities in the Basic Allowance for
Housing (BAH) rates. Has that order taken effect yet? And if
not, when is it going to take effect?
Mr. Pirie. In the fiscal year 2001 budget, there is
adequate resources to reduce the out-of-pocket, average out-of-
pocket expenses from where it is now, 19 or a little more
percent down to 15 percent, but in the future year defense
program, there are resources to reduce it to zero by 2005. This
is an important move. This will make a big difference.
Senator Murray. Explain to me exactly how it is going to
look in the future.
BAH
Mr. Pirie. Well, over the course of the next five years,
incrementally we will buy down the 15 percent which will be
left over at the end of fiscal year 2001. We will put
increasing amounts of money into the budget to increase the BAH
allowances, so that by our calculations the average out-of-
pocket expense over and above their allowances which sailors
will have to undergo to get housing in the community will be
reduced.
It is a rather complicated business because it depends on
surveys of housing costs, and I have to say the surveys are not
my business, they are the business of my colleague, Carolyn
Becraft, the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs and fundamentally of the office of the Secretary of
Defense. I have not been particularly pleased by some of the
survey news that I have heard, and I think we need to pay very
careful attention to how these are done so that we do not see
serious inequities.
I think going into the BAH concept and going to the concept
of reducing the out-of-pocket expenses for those who draw BAH
was a really important way to get rid of one inequity which was
that people living in government housing were subsidizing
people who were living not in government housing. So we have
gotten that inequity behind us. Now we have to be careful that
these surveys do not create other inequities.
Senator Murray. That is exactly what happened in Washington
State. I understand what your long-range goal is, but the
short-range effect was that many people were going to get less
BAH and they really saw that as a real slap in the face in
Washington State, but I understand Secretary Cohen has ordered
an end to that disparity. Does the Defense Department intend to
seek congressional approval to make changes retroactive, and,
if so, retroactive to when?
Mr. Pirie. Retroactive changes?
Senator Murray. In the BAH.
Mr. Pirie. Not that I know of. I do not know. We will look
into it and let you know.
[The information follows:]
The roll-back to 1999 rates for low cost areas went into
effect on March 1, 2000, however the money for March will not
be seen until the 1 April paycheck. OSD intends to seek
legislative authority to allow retroactive payment from January
1, 2000 to February 29, 2000 for all members who transferred
into these low cost areas during that time.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that. Naval Station Everett is
one of the Navy's public-private venture housing sites. Can you
give me an update on the status of that project currently?
Mr. Pirie. We have--as you know, we do have a project at
Everett and another one going in, and it is one of the seven
that are currently in negotiation. And we have finally worked
through the supplemental to buy down the rates for the first
project to be a more tolerable rate for the people, but do you
have further news?
Admiral Smith. The procurement is going along very well. We
are in active discussions in what we call Everett 2. There
really are, probably as you know, three contracts there. The
first was one of our first PPVs. It went extremely well with
beautiful units. I hope you get a chance to see them. We then
modified that contract and put in what we call a Differential
Lease Payment (DLP), something that brings a little more money
to the table for the people living in the housing, and enables
them to get to a zero out-of-pocket condition.
What we are doing now we call Everett 2 because it is
basically the original contract, the original concept. We are
in active negotiations. I hope by the summer or early fall to
come over to you all with a proposed award, but it is going
very well, and I visited both the naval station and the
Marysville site. It is very pretty.
Senator Murray. Yes, it is very nice. I look forward to
working with you on that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. I am here to talk about our naval bases in
Idaho.
Mr. Pirie. We have a terrific base at Lake Pend Oreille.
Senator Craig. I was testing your knowledge. And, of
course, Bayview is an important facility. A lot of folks do not
realize that we have that naval installation in our state, and
I think it has been recognized as probably a premier facility
when it comes to acoustical testing, extremely valuable for our
submarine fleet and probably for other surface vessels also.
I guess my question, and my frustration, because I see what
is being offered by the administration as it relates to plant
replacement value, and I see our goal of reaching 3 percent of
plant replacement value for naval facilities for annual real
property maintenance, I watched Bayview, and I know that the
reason we have a good relationship there and some positive
things going on is because of Congress intervening and helping,
and we will continue to do that, and I guess my question of you
is what are you doing to reach the goal of allocating 3
percent?
Mr. Pirie. The real property maintenance budget is
generally problematical for us. We do not have--I mean, other
than the 3 percent number, we do not really have good industry
standards at the moment for maintaining the property we have,
and we do not have a scheme that gives us hard and fast
requirements numbers in this area. As a result, in the internal
budget allocation process in the Navy Department, higher
priority items such as readiness funding, procurement of major
weapons systems, imperatives in that area tend to impact
negatively into our real property maintenance budget.
I would certainly be the first to agree that we ought to
take our stewardship of Federal facilities seriously and work
to maintain these properties in good shape for the long term,
and my small voice in the resource allocation discussions that
go along over in the Pentagon tends to that effect. We could
use more money for real property maintenance, there is no
question about it. These questions become very important from
time to time, including the procurement budget and concerns
about whether we will be able to sustain the 300-ship Navy or
be able to sustain the air wings that we put on the carriers.
When those questions appear on the horizon, the question
about keeping the buildings in good shape sometimes gets pushed
to one side.
Senator Craig. Well, I appreciate that answer because that
is a struggle we face and are going to continue to face. This
committee has made an effort to step in where the
administration has chosen not to go, and we will continue to do
that, I hope. It is a matter of maintenance, it is a matter of
the ability to deliver. It is also a quality of life factor for
a good many of our folks in uniform, and to be in a competitive
marketplace today, I think that is something we have to be
terribly sensitive to. Not of your watch, but I did have a
windshield tour of my air base the other day out in Idaho
looking at housing, and I am not at all happy with what I am
seeing, and we are struggling to keep our airmen and women, and
it is not just the bonus, it is the overall environment in
which they live, and I think that is true in the other
services. We have got to be sensitive to that. Acoustical
research detachment, the one I am talking about on Lake Pend
Oreille, and the growing importance of stealth technology, do
you see other missions coming our way?
Mr. Pirie. Once again, I am way out of my depth here. I
could defer to my military colleagues, and I assume it is the
acoustical testing that is done so preeminently there.
Admiral Smith. Sir, having been to that beautiful lake and
the fine facility that is there, you know, we are the Navy, we
exist to float, the hydrodynamic research as well as the
acoustic research that is there gets more and more important to
us every day, and I look at what we are doing in the Navy
meteorological command as well as the research and development
fields within the Naval Sea Systems Command, and it just gets
more and more advanced and you need cleaner and cleaner water
where you can do that kind of work. That is one of the beauties
of that site, so it certainly has an active life, but you would
have to talk to a slightly different kind of engineer than a
civil engineer, I am afraid.
Senator Craig. I will continue to pursue that. Thank you,
gentlemen, very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me ask
unanimous consent my opening statement be a part of the record.
Senator Burns. Without objection, it will be a part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Larry Craig
Mr. Chairman, it is truly a pleasure to serve on the Military
Construction Subcommittee. I am proud of the accomplishments and impact
which we have had on not only the Department of Defense, but also on
the men, women and their families who serve diligently in defending
this great nation of ours. We have worked hard in the past to ensure
funds are provided and available for the crucial projects needed at our
all important military installations, and unfortunately we are required
to work even harder this year to keep funding at even an adequate
level.
As we all know, the military construction budget is to provide
necessary funding for the planning, design, construction, alteration,
and improvement of military facilities world-wide. Over the last couple
of years I get the feeling this has been lost on the Clinton-Gore
Administration. Both Houses of Congress have continually debated with
the current administration about whether military construction funding
and long-term planning are adequate.
The Department of Defense's stated goal for real property
maintenance is 3 percent, which is below funding used for public
facilities nationwide. In light of this, it is mind boggling to think
that some of the Services are budgeting only 1 percent of the plant
replacement value. How can we expect to keep our military
infrastructure maintained at a functioning level when the maintenance
budget won't even cover the day-to-day replacement costs due to normal
aging?
Due to the lack of adequate budgeting and planning, Congress has
felt the need to intervene and fund programs which we fill are in the
``best interest'' of the services. A good example of this cooperation
between Congress and the Navy is the Acoustic Research Detachment,
located at Lake Pend Oreille in Bayview, Idaho. This facility develops
and evaluates advanced submarine technology. The lake's depth and mild
currents provide an unmatched environment to test the stealthness of
our submarine designs. In fact, I heard that it was Admiral
Giambastiani who said, ``for the Navy Submarine Fleet, the most
important body of water is Lake Pend Oreille.''
However, in spite of the successes, I feel that Congress is being
held hostage by the Clinton-Gore Administration. They know that we will
not let our men and women of the armed forces down and will increase
the funding for military construction, which the Congress has done to
the tune of about $3,500,000,000 over the last 5 years.
Although military construction is not the most glamorous issue, it
is becoming more and more important in the quality of life and morale
of our troops and their families. I will continue to support projects
which enhance mission readiness and quality of life initiatives which
will help in retaining our superb men and women of the armed forces.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. I just have a couple of
more questions. When we look at overall spending and
everything, Mr. Secretary, and this type thing, and we knew
what we were doing last year, but despite everything the BRAC
is more than doubled, it goes up to $477 million this year.
Now, does that get done what we need to get done? Do we have
shortfalls there also?
Mr. Pirie. No. That will get--if we have that money----
Senator Burns. That fulfills our obligation, that is what I
am concerned about?
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir, and it is really a question of does
Admiral Smith have enough confidence that the money is going to
be there so that he can continue to spend and keep these things
going right up to September 30 so that on October 1st there is
the new checkbook to start writing from. We confront a fairly
massive number of conveyances in this next year, and the
cleanup is key to that. I will provide counsel a copy of what
is called our star chart, the number of conveyances that we
have to get done this year. It is truly impressive.
[The information follows:]
Department of the Navy--Fiscal Year 2001 BRAC Environmental Funding
The Department of the Navy's planned fiscal year 2000 BRAC funding
was significantly reduced as $255 million of fiscal year 2000 funds
were moved to fiscal year 2001 as part of the Administration's proposed
use of Advance Appropriation for the military construction accounts in
the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget Submission. Although the
Congress denied the use of Advance Appropriations and restored full
funding for the Military Construction and Family Housing Construction
accounts, BRAC was not restored. The bulk of the funds that shifted
from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001 last year, remain in the
fiscal year 2001 budget. Thus the steep increase in BRAC funds from
fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001.
The impacts of this shift in funds have been reduced site cleanups,
increased project administration costs due to required contract
changes, strained relations with the regulatory community, and a loss
of credibility among the public, regulators and the redevelopment
community as pertains to cleanup schedules and commitments. The impact
of delayed funding also impacts transfer opportunities across the
program. Facilities, utility systems, installed equipment, and
infrastructures deteriorate rapidly after base closure. Redevelopment
authorities and other federal agencies are not motivated to take on
property with deteriorated infrastructure or where Navy's commitments
to timely cleanup are questionable. Nor do they view opportunities for
early transfers as viable options when we delay funding with direct
impacts on agreed upon cleanup schedules supporting community
redevelopment projects.
The Navy has worked hard to mitigate funding obstacles to meet
FOST, regulatory and transfer dates. To do so, we reworked project
schedules and contract documents coupled with stop-gap incremental
funding methods to keep the maximum number of projects moving forward.
This effort was accomplished by dividing hundreds of task orders into
smaller phases, and adjusting contract award and completion schedules
to match the expected appropriations cycle rather than accelerated
cleanup and transfer schedules. As a result, we are positioned to
obligate the fiscal year 2001 increment of these critical projects very
early in the first quarter of fiscal year 2001, thereby restarting the
delayed work as quickly as possible. This rework has resulted in some
changes in the fiscal year 2001 budget request, where nearly all of the
BRAC funds are for environmental cleanup. The continued execution of
the fiscal year 2000/2001 program will only work if fiscal year 2001
funding is received in full. The following list outlines those areas
where 74 percent of all fiscal year 2001 BRAC funds are being spent.
Despite these actions to maintain momentum with limited funds, we
have already experienced some unavoidable impacts:
Mare Island
Reduced or delayed funding in fiscal year 2001 will result in
conveyance delays. Mare Island is divided into 22 parcels, which were
delineated with the environmental cleanup schedules as a primary
consideration. Reduced or delayed funding would impact disposal of 14
parcels, or a total of 5,000 acres.
The majority of the developed and developable land was requested
for transfer under an Economic Development Conveyance application,
which was approved in September 1999. Most of this property is
scheduled to be conveyed in fiscal year 2002 when the environmental
work would be completed if we proceed as currently scheduled. There are
two developers now working under a LIFOC. Further postponements of
remediation projects on EDC parcels will delay deed transfer, which
will adversely impact the community's ability to raise capital to fund
redevelopment projects.
Large portions, approximately 3,600 acres, of the wetlands revert
to the State of California. Currently these parcels are scheduled for
conveyance in 2004 and 2005. There is interest in an early transfer of
these parcels to support a commercial dredging operation in the Bay
Area. Additionally, the LRA has informally notified Navy they are
planning to make application for an early transfer of all other parts
of the Mare Island complex this year as well. Reduced or delayed
funding would seriously jeopardize our ability to make a meaningful
commitment to early conveyance of this property in fiscal year 2001.
FISC Oakland
Funding included for the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC)
Oakland is for two installations--FISC Alameda Annex and Naval Fuel
Depot Point Molate. Both of these sites were the subject of special
legislation and will be transferred via a quit claim deed. We are
pursuing an agreement between the Navy and the City of Alameda,
California, to transfer the FISC Alameda Annex property to the City in
April 2000 with Navy to complete environmental cleanup to support the
City's redevelopment project. The City's $100 million development
project will be jeopardized if environmental cleanup funding is delayed
from fiscal year 2001 to an outyear.
Point Molate NEPA will be completed this fall. Navy could then
convey the property except that environmental cleanup will not have
been completed. If funding is delayed, transfer of the first two
parcels, or 40 acres, currently scheduled for December 2003 will not be
met. City is actively considering early transfer and has hired
consultant(s) to assess their risks and advise them on early transfer.
In that case, lack or delay of funding in fiscal year 2001 would also
undermine our ability to commit to an early transfer in the near term.
Naval Air Station in South Weymouth, MA (NAS SOWEY)
The limited fiscal year 2000 funding affected our opportunity for
an early transfer of NAS SOWEY. The Local Reuse Authority (LRA) for NAS
SOWEY has put together a redevelopment plan that includes retail
shopping, office space and recreational parks. The centerpiece of the
redevelopment is a one million square foot shopping mall. The Mills
Corporation, developers of the mall, is prepared to begin construction
in January 2001. However, Mills cannot begin construction without a
long-term lease (LIFOC) or ownership of the property. Mills also
requires a connector road to access the mall. This road would go
completely across the base. The mall and the connector road are the
keys to redevelopment of NAS SOWEY.
In order to meet the January 2001 construction start date, the LRA
had asked Navy to provide property transfer or LIFOC for the Mall
Parcel and Connector Parcel by 1 October 2000. The shift in funding
greatly affected Navy's ability to either transfer or reach LIFOC for
the Mall Parcel and the Connector Parcel. A number of remediation
projects must occur in fiscal year 2000 to meet the mall construction
schedule. Any delay in fiscal year 2001 funding will make it impossible
to achieve a FOST by the date requested by the LRA. This will delay the
start of Mills' construction and may even drive the Mills Corporation
out of the project completely thereby destroying the reuse plan.
Moffett Field
At Crows Landing, the land has been transferred from NASA to
Stanislaus County. The new owner wants to convert this base to an
Agricultural Airport for rapid transportation of perishables produced
by the farmers in the area. Any delays will affect the farms that
surround the base. A regional Treatment System, which is integral to
redevelopment, was planned to be in place by August 2000; but due to
the fiscal year 2000 budget reduction, the cleanup implementation has
been pushed out one year to August 2001. We intend to utilize recovered
monies from prior year unobligated/unexpended balances to fund fiscal
year 2000 requirements at Moffet. However, if funds are unavailable in
fiscal year 2001, the schedule will be further impacted.
At Moffett Field, the main base real estate has already been
transferred to NASA. Due to the reduction in fiscal year 2000 funding,
the cleanup of Site 22 was delayed from August 2000 to August 2001. If
fiscal year 2001 is not fully funded, it will have a ripple effect on
remediation work carried out, such as the cleanup at ecologically
sensitive areas (Site 27). This will also affect the agreement Navy has
signed with NASA as it impacts their future land use plan. Moffett is a
National Priorities List site. Public reaction is also expected (a very
active RAB exists at Moffett); they have already questioned the budget
cuts at several RAB meetings.
NAS Alameda
Shortfalls or delayed funding in fiscal year 2001 would result in
EDC Parcels 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16 and Fed 2, 4 conveyance
and cleanup delays. A planned 575-acre wildlife refuge is also
affected. Delays would result in missed milestones contained in the
pending Federal Facilities Agreement, with possible payment of
stipulated penalties. Reuse and development delays will cost the city
millions of dollars in revenue. Since the community has been an active
participant in the cleanup process, additional cleanup delays will
increase public resentment and outrage. If all parcels at Alameda must
be cleaned before transfer, the final transfer to the City would not
occur until May 2007. In all likelihood, a delay of this length will
cause the City to miss the prevailing positive economic cycle, which
could leave this parcel undeveloped for this entire decade.
NAS Memphis
Memphis is the first early transfer where Navy agreed to continue
environmental cleanup after transfer. As such, it is being watched by
other BRAC communities considering similar opportunities to accelerate
reuse. Memphis has a cleanup schedule specified in the Covenant
Deferral Request. We are currently conducting the Corrective Measures
Study at Memphis, with the remedies to be selected the second and third
quarter of fiscal year 2001. We may not be able to pursue cleanup at
Memphis as negotiated with the State of Tennessee if fiscal year 2001
funds are reduced. This would send a strong adverse signal to the other
states considering early transfers. Navy would loose all credibility
for any schedule established and future conveyance agreements that
would rely on post-conveyance environmental cleanups.
Charleston Naval Complex
The Redevelopment Authority has indicated a willingness to
entertain early transfer in the summer of 2000 because of a fixed price
environmental restoration contract already signed that uses private
sector insurance to guarantee the price and cleanup. This contract is
incrementally funded over two years and places the investigative and
cleanup requirements on one prime contractor for expedited transfer and
environmental closure. Reduction in funding of the fiscal year 2001
budget request would have an extremely adverse impact on the time
schedule and total cost of the contract as well as the timeline for
transfer of the property. The FOST date for EDC phase 3 would be
delayed at least a year.
NAVSTA Treasure Island
Reduced or delayed funding in fiscal year 2001 would result in
conveyance and cleanup delays from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year
2009, igniting public resentment. Seven conveyance parcels on Treasure
Island would be directly impacted. The planned reuse/development, for
housing, film studios, ferry terminal and a marina, has high political
interest in California and in Congress. Reuse and development delays
could cost the city millions of dollars in revenue. More importantly,
the Navy would be in direct violation of the signed Federal
Facilities--State Remediation Agreement resulting in possible
stipulated penalties.
The City of San Francisco has expressed interest in early transfer
of Treasure Island this year. There are basically two scenarios
possible: (1) Fixed-price buy-out with cleanup included in
redevelopment by the new owner, and (2) Early transfer with cleanup to
be completed by the government after conveyance. Congressional
reductions in Navy's fiscal year 2001 budget requests would eliminate
any possibility of a fixed-price buy-out because funds would not be
available when needed to consummate such a deal. Fiscal year 2001
funding delays or reductions would also significantly undermine the
City's confidence in timely federal cleanup following an early
transfer. Our best hope to accelerate conveyance and economic
development of this property is full funding of Navy's request in
fiscal year 2001.
Hunters Points NSY
Navy is currently exploring early transfer of Hunters Point with
the City of San Francisco and their master developer. Congressional
support of Navy's fiscal year 2001-2003 budget requests will be
absolutely critical to consummating an early transfer for this troubled
property. The City's economic development cycle is in high-gear and
accelerated development of Hunters Point is a City imperative since
this is one of the last major parcels of undeveloped waterfront real
estate in the San Francisco area. Even if early transfer and fixed-
price buy-out negotiations are unsuccessful, any funding reductions in
fiscal year 2001 would adversely impact Site 78 on Parcel F. Because of
reduced fiscal year 2000 funding, the Regional Sediment Report will be
incrementally funded. If the balance of funds is not provided in fiscal
year 2001, the Navy will be in violation of the Federal Facilities
Agreement schedule. These delays will require approval from the BRAC
Cleanup Team (in particular, the regulatory agencies). If funds are not
provided until fiscal year 2002, this will delay the Remedial
Investigation phase, followed by the Feasibility Study phase, Record Of
Decision, Remedial Action phases and the planned transfer date of
January 2004 (which would be pushed to January 2005) to the City of San
Francisco.
NAS Dallas
Early transfer is being pursued for the Navy's ``L'' Parcel with
the City of Dallas. Cuts in fiscal year 2001 would delay both the FOST
and disposal date. On the property leased from the city of Dallas, the
Navy is negotiating with the City regarding the extent of cleanup
required and a possible cooperative agreement, with cleanup funding
passed from the Navy to the City. Funding reductions would probably end
discussions on a cooperative agreement and most likely lead to lawsuits
and a judicial solution.
NOS Louisville
The Navy anticipates an early transfer of the entire property with
cleanup being finished by the Navy after transfer. Funding cuts would
not allow us to meet the FOST dates specified; and the early transfer,
which the district's Congressional representative champions as a must
have for the local economy, would be in jeopardy. This would negate all
reuse planning to date and require a total reevaluation of the reuse
plan.
NAS Cecil Field
The FOSTs for six parcels would not be met if funding is reduced in
fiscal year 2001. These include parcels already delayed from both the
PBCs and EDCs by earlier budget reductions. The FOSTs for two parcels
scheduled for November 2000 would not be met if fiscal year 2001
funding is delayed. Delays must be avoided to preserve the community's
reuse plan since the aircraft related activities could easily relocate
to another facility in the southeast portion of the country, leaving
the property undeveloped for years to come.
NAWC Indianapolis
The FOSTs for two parcels scheduled for fiscal year 2003 will not
be met if fiscal year 2001 funding is shorted. This property is leased
until transfer is complete. Should the cleanup effort be suspended or
postponed, the lease could be terminated and the property abandoned.
NTC Orlando
The FOST for three parcels scheduled for 2001 will not be met if
fiscal year 2001 funding is reduced. We expect delays to most of the
currently scheduled FOSTs and transfers of property, and delays in
pursuing ultimate cleanup.
SUMMARY
Navy has accommodated the incremental impacts in fiscal year 2000
by restructuring the cleanup contracting strategies across the program.
Increased labor and increased costs of the cleanup work are inevitable.
Some delays are already occurring but the promise of full follow-on
funding in fiscal year 2001 has been used effectively to allay
community and regulator concerns. Navy is also actively pursuing early
transfers and fixed-price buyouts at several major bases. Reductions or
even indications of potential reductions in Navy's BRAC budget request
during congressional reviews over the next few months will have
devastating affects on timely and successful conclusion of the BRAC
program. Impacts to community redevelopment efforts and job generation
will result across the country.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T09FE29.000
Senator Burns. Mr. Secretary, if you could, and then sort
of detail some of those, where those conveyances will be made
and kind of keep the committee informed, I would like that, and
I know that you have a pretty robust schedule this year with
regard to that, and we appreciate that, but you know every time
you see a spike in there, that always draws a little bit of
attention. How come we are doing that, and of course some of
that, some of the steps we have taken in the past 2 years has
caused part of that, too, we also understand that. And we will
work with you. But if you could provide the committee on those
conveyances and where we are in our cleanup with more detail, I
would certainly appreciate that.
Mr. Pirie. Definitely. I have got a memorandum on some of
the trapeze acts that we have had to do with the communities
just to get through this year, and I will provide that as well.
[The information follows:]
Memorandum for Stakeholders in the Department of the Navy Environmental
Restoration Program
FISCAL YEAR 2000 CLEANUP FUNDING
Funding for cleanups at installations undergoing Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) is provided from the Navy's BRAC account, which is
part of the Military Construction appropriation. When the Department of
the Navy developed the BRAC budget, $382 million, in environmental
projects was planned for fiscal year 2000. This figure represented a
$107 million real increase from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2000
and would have funded our fiscal year 2000 BRAC environmental
requirements. During final budget deliberations within the Department
of Defense, $233 million was shifted from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal
year 2001 leaving $149 million (about 40 percent) available for BRAC
account fiscal year 2000. This shift of funds, called an Advanced
Appropriation, was based on the premise that not all funds are needed
in the year a cleanup project is initiated. After a project is
initiated by awarding a contract, work progresses over many months and
progress payments are made to the contractor accordingly. Only when the
contractor ``cashes'' the government checks are funds expended from the
federal treasury. Historically, the BRAC cleanup program has expended
about 40 percent of funds in the first year, with the remaining funds
expended over the following 12-18 months. Having pre-approved, future
appropriations (an Advanced Appropriation) would have allowed the
military services to contract for the same BRAC cleanup projects as
planned in fiscal year 2000 and have funds available for cleanup
projects as they progressed into fiscal year 2001. Congress did not
approve the Advanced Appropriation concept. We have been unsuccessful
in restoring fiscal year 2000 BRAC funds to the level first planned.
Fiscal year 2000 will be a difficult year for Navy execution of the
BRAC environmental program. Because funds have not been appropriated,
we will not be able to contract for all the cleanup projects we had
planned. We have asked the Naval Facilities Engineering Command and
their field divisions to consult with stakeholders at BRAC bases to
ensure we make the best use of available funds. The risk to human
health and the status of property reuse actions will be prime factors
in prioritizing our efforts. However, we are aware that not all
requirements can be satisfied in fiscal year 2000. We appreciate your
understanding and cooperation as we strive to meet our regulatory
obligations and commitments to your community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposal date
Installation -----------------
Month Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adak.................................................. 3 2001
Agana................................................. 9 2001
Alameda............................................... 6 2005
Annapolis............................................. 9 2001
Barbers Pt............................................ 9 2001
Brooklyn.............................................. 9 2002
Cecil Fld............................................. 9 2002
Chastn Com............................................ 12 2001
Chase (Goli).......................................... 2 2000
Coconut Gr............................................ 2 2000
Dallas................................................ 12 2002
Davisville............................................ 1 2001
El Toro............................................... 5 2004
Glenview.............................................. 2 2001
Guam PWC.............................................. 9 2001
Guam SRF.............................................. 12 1999
Hunters Pt............................................ 9 2005
Huntsville............................................ 11 1999
Indianapolis.......................................... 11 2003
Jamestown............................................. 3 2000
Key West.............................................. 1 2001
Long Bch Sy........................................... 12 2000
Long Bch NS........................................... 1 2000
Louisville............................................ 10 2003
Mare Island........................................... 12 2005
Memphis............................................... 12 1999
New London............................................ 6 2000
Oakland Fisc.......................................... 7 2004
Oakland NH............................................ 3 2000
Oakland NRL........................................... 4 2000
Orlando NTC........................................... 6 2001
Perth Amboy........................................... 5 2000
Philadel NH........................................... 10 200
Philade NS............................................ ....... 2002
Pittsfield............................................ 1 2000
Salton Sea............................................ 12 1999
San Diego............................................. 3 2002
San Fran PWC.......................................... 1 2002
Sand Point PU......................................... 12 1999
South Weymo........................................... 9 2002
Staten Island......................................... 1 200
Stockton CA........................................... 3 2000
Treasure Is........................................... 3 2003
Trenton Naw........................................... 7 2000
Tustin................................................ 2 2003
Warminster............................................ 9 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Burns. Well, you have made it through that
minefield pretty good. We think you have done a good job. And
of course I would say to my good Marine friends, you know,
everybody else is worried about housing. We would take some of
your housing at probably Home Air Force base. We Marines are
used to sleeping just in a tent, you know.
Senator Craig. I have heard those lines from you before. I
don't believe them.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Burns. You guys have to get a life. I have no
further questions for this panel, and I appreciate you coming
this morning. Again, we look forward to working with you as we
complete this process, and if we can be of any help to you, we
are certainly here to provide that for you. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for coming this morning.
Mr. Pirie. Thank you, Senator.
[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
FUNDING LEVELS
Question. The Navy's fiscal year 2001 overall budget represents a
two percent increase over last year's enacted level, about $166
million. However, a large portion of this increase is in the BRAC
account. Their construction program is in fact below last year's
enacted level.
Secretary Pirie, while your fiscal year 2001 budget looks stronger
than last year's budget, a good portion of the increase is actually
allocated to the BRAC account. Why is this a good news story?
Answer. Yes, most of the increase is in the BRAC account, because
that area had the greatest need. During the fiscal year 2000 budget
deliberations within the Department of Defense, Navy BRAC environmental
funds were shifted from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001 as part of
a request for Advanced Appropriation in the construction accounts.
Congress did not approve the Advanced Appropriation concept, and fully
funded the fiscal year 2000 military construction and family housing
construction accounts. BRAC funding, however, was not similarly
restored. Thus, the large increase in fiscal year 2001 BRAC funding
represents requirements and funding, nearly all of which is to cleanup
BRAC properties, deferred from fiscal year 2000 and added to our fiscal
year 2001 requirements. These projects are closely tied to
redevelopment and reuse of the property by Local Redevelopment
Authorities and need to be completed to stay on schedule with
redevelopment plans.
Our fiscal year 2001 request retains this higher level of funding.
We consider this funding vital to support redevelopment efforts by
town, communities and cities adversely affected by base closures, and
to keep the disposal of excess Navy property on schedule so that the
savings can be applied elsewhere in Navy's budget. Fiscal year 2001
represents the single largest year for planned property transfers for
the Department of Navy.
Our fiscal year 2001 request is also higher than fiscal year 2000
in other areas as well. Our Family Housing Construction appropriation
request is seven percent above the fiscal year 2000 enacted amount. Our
Real Property Maintenance request is nine percent greater than the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level, after inclusion of the Department of
the Navy's share of Quality of Life Enhancement, Defense in fiscal year
2000 and the effect of the fiscal year 2000 rescission. Our Family
Housing Operations and Maintenance account, and Base Operations Support
are about the same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Only our
Military Construction, Navy and Military Construction, Naval Reserve
accounts are below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. They are,
however, similar to the fiscal year 2000 budget request level before
Department of Defense decision to eliminate contingency funding.
Overall, this is the strongest facilities budget submitted to the
Congress during my six year tenure in this position.
Question. What will be the impact of taking all of the fiscal year
2000 across-the-board reduction for the operation and maintenance
account against only the real property maintenance accounts?
Answer. Targeting the entire $136 million operation and maintenance
rescission to the real property maintenance accounts, although
difficult, avoids immediate readiness problems and can be done with the
least risk of reduction-in-force or furloughs. Nonetheless, the
decision amounts to a nine percent reduction in fiscal year 2000 Real
Property Maintenance funds, and contributes to the growth in the
backlog of maintenance and repairs. Unless other sources of funds can
be found, all types of facilities, including barracks and other quality
of life facilities, will be adversely impacted. Even mission critical
facilities (e.g. waterfront, airport, Bachelor Quarters, and training)
that we fund at a C-2 facility readiness level will be funded at the
reduced level of C-3 readiness this year as a result.
PUBLIC/PRIVATE VENTURES (PPV)
Question. Secretary Pirie, how will Secretary Cohen's recent
announcement to buy out the basic allowance for housing for those
Service members living on the economy impact family housing
privatization?
Answer. The impact of this initiative on family housing
privatization is uncertain at this time. We have begun efforts to
analyze the long-term impacts of this initiative on the supply and
demand for military housing. Preliminary analysis of on-going
privatization projects indicate that all remain viable and meet
applicable statutory thresholds for Government participation. Our first
opportunity to address possible impacts will be when we provide the
Family Housing Master Plans due to congress in July. Our objective is
to strike the appropriate balance between reliance on the private
sector and, where necessary, the provision of Government quarters,
through public/private ventures and traditional military construction.
Question. I understand the Navy is looking at privatizing barracks.
Please describe how such an initiative would work?
Answer. The Navy is evaluating the feasibility of a private
Bachelor Quarters (BQ) project for Naval District Washington (NDW). The
proposed scope is a 200 unit, apartment-style project intended for
single sailors in paygrades E-5 and E-6 stationed in the Washington
D.C. area.
The Navy is also evaluating the feasibility of a BQ privatization
effort at Mitchel Field, Long Island, New York, as part of a combined
bachelor and family housing PPV project.
Under both projects the Navy would provide land to a developer who
in turn would build apartments that our unaccompanied Sailors could
rent within their Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). There would be no
guaranteed rental rates to the developer. Presently the Navy does not
anticipate the need to provide any up front cash investment.
The Marine Corps is exploring the possibility of privatizing a
Bachelor Officer Quarters at The Basic School in Quantico, Virginia.
The Marine Corps is currently conducting industry interviews.
We are continuing to explore the potential use of unaccompanied
housing privatization to support the Navy's new initiative to berth
shipboard Sailors ashore in homeport. Additional projects may be
developed if they are cost effective and consistent with single Sailor
policy objectives.
Question. I continue to be concerned about how installations with
family housing privatization ventures and other privatization ventures
will be treated in future rounds of BRAC. Have we created a system of
``haves'' and ``have-nots'' with regards to BRAC?
Answer. In future rounds of BRAC, decisions to close or realign
bases will be made independently of the presence (or absence) of
privatized housing. The Department of the Navy's approach to family
housing privatization will provide flexibility in the event of changing
conditions such as base closures or realignments. The Department of the
Navy is not using any BRAC guarantees in its housing privatization
program. Also, the Navy's Public Private Venture business approach,
which involves becoming a minority partner in a public-private entity
through investment, results in the right to participate in certain key
decisions, including decisions on how to react to fluctuations in
military housing requirements. Options that would be available to
respond to reduced military demand include renting units to civilians
at market rates or the selling of assets in a market-based sale. The
Department of the Navy then would return its share of the proceeds to
the Family Housing Improvement Fund for future use.
DEMOLITION PROGRAM
Question. Last year we discussed the Navy's demolition program. It
would appear that this program has been quite successful. Do you have
an estimate of how much money the Navy has saved by demolishing old
facilities?
Answer. The Centralized Demolition program has been a success story
for the Navy and Marine Corps over the last several years. We estimate
a ``cost avoidance'' vice savings of $2 per square foot of the
facilities we are demolishing. To date the Navy and Marine Corps have
demolished nearly 1,700 buildings and structures and eliminated 8.7
million square feet of unneeded space.
Question. When do you expect to complete the program? Will this
allow your limited real property maintenance dollars to go further?
Answer. Defense Reform Initiative Directive (DRID) #36 established
demolition goals for each service. The Navy's goal is 9.9 million
square feet by the end of fiscal year 2002; the Marine Corps goal is
2.1 million square feet by the end of fiscal year 2000. We are on
target to meet these goals and actually expect to exceed them. Since
1996, the Navy/Marine Corps team has executed over 200 projects to
remove nearly 1,700 buildings and structures and eliminate 8.7 million
square feet from the inventory. We expect to demolish an additional 2.9
million square feet in fiscal year 2000.
We plan to continue the program beyond established goals as long as
it is cost effective. The Centralized Demolition Program places an
increased emphasis on demolishing excess and obsolete facilities which
reduces the infrastructure to be maintained and ultimately allows our
limited RPM dollars to be invested in the facilities we need to retain.
Question. What kind of buildings are you demolishing? Is it
primarily World War II wood facilities?
Answer. The Department of the Navy has demolished a variety of
buildings and structures over the last few years including facilities
constructed from wood, concrete, concrete masonry unit block wall and
steel. Examples of facilities demolished are supply warehouses, fuel
tanks, administrative buildings, officer clubs, radar towers,
substandard bachelor enlisted quarters and aircraft hangars. Some have
been WWII vintage wood facilities, but it would not be accurate to say
they are primarily WW II wood facilities.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONTINGENCY ELIMINATION
Question. Could this reduction cause a change in overall scope of
the projects? What other challenges will this cause?
Answer. The Department of the Navy does not plan to change the
scope of construction projects as a result of eliminating contingency
funds. The absence of contingency funds may compromise our ability to
execute some fiscal year 2001 projects during the fiscal year.
Question. When a project encounters cost over-runs, how will the
Navy treat a shortfall without the contingency account?
Answer. The Department of the Navy is committed to maintaining
required scope and quality of authorized and appropriated projects. In
the absence of contingency funds to cover unforeseen construction
requirements, additional funds, if necessary to complete a project,
will have to come from reprogrammings, deferrals, or cancellations of
other projects.
VIEQUES
Question. Secretary Pirie, please describe the current situation
with respect to Vieques?
Answer. The Navy is working to implement the two presidential
directives that were issued on January 31, 2000. RADM Kevin Green,
COMUSNAVSO, and his staff are established in Puerto Rico and working
with representatives of both the community and the Commonwealth.
Question. When does the Navy anticipate being able to use the
Vieques ranges to conduct fleet training? I understand that the $40
million of economic development funding is dependent on the resumption
of training.
Answer. No date has been set for resumption of training. Navy is
working with the representatives of the Commonwealth to methodically
implement the elements of the presidential directives and establish the
conditions necessary to conduct training. Once these conditions have
been set, training will be scheduled.
The $40 million funding is dependent on the resumption of training
and continuous availability of the Live Impact Area for use of inert
ordnance.
Question. The presidential directive allows no more than 90 days of
annual training. Is this sufficient to train the fleet before
deployment?
Answer. Yes.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
Question. What are you doing to reach the goal of allocating 3
percent of the plant replacement value of Navy facilities for annual
real property maintenance?
Answer. While the private sector uses 2-4 percent of the plant
replacement value for annual real property maintenance, the Navy's goal
is 2.1 percent and the Marine Corps' goal is 1.75 percent to arrest
backlog growth. Competing priorities have not enabled the Department to
achieve the desired goals.
Question. With the ever growing importance of stealth technology,
are there any other missions for the Acoustic Research Detachment at
Lake Pend Oreille, which are applicable to the surface fleet?
Answer. The Navy presently has no identified mission requirement or
funding in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) to support such
testing at Lake Pend Oreille for surface ships.
Defense Agencies
U.S. Special Operations Command
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. NORTON SCHWARTZ, DEPUTY COMMANDER
IN CHIEF
Defense Logistics Agency
STATEMENT OF MARSHALL BAILEY, DIRECTOR OF SUPPORT
SERVICES
Department of Defense Education Activity
STATEMENT OF RAY TOLLESON, INTERIM DIRECTOR
TRICARE Management Activity
STATEMENT OF DIANA TABLER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Senator Burns. We will now hear from the second panel
representing the defense agencies. The witnesses are Lieutenant
General Norton Schwartz, U.S. Special Operations Command, Mr.
Marshall Bailey, Director of Support Services, Defense
Logistics Agency, Mr. Ray Tolleson, acting director, Department
of Defense Education Activity, Ms. Diana Tabler, deputy
executive director, TRICARE Management Activity.
Gentlemen and madam, we welcome you this morning and look
forward to your testimony. This will provide the committee an
overview of the respective agencies' proposed new budget
request, and I ask you to keep your statements, if you could
summarize your statements, as we work our way through this.
I have a conference this morning on the orbit bill, and we
are trying to get that issue put to bed, so to speak, and so we
are looking forward to your testimony this morning. We will
start with General Schwartz.
General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, Senator Craig, good
morning. It is a pleasure to appear before you here today to
present the United States Special Operations Command fiscal
year 2001 military construction budget request, and as you
mentioned earlier, I am Lieutenant General Norton Schwartz. I
work for General Pete Schoomaker, the Commander in Chief of the
U.S. Special Operations Command, and with your permission I
would like to enter my formal statement into the record.
Senator Burns. Without objection, your full statement will
be made part of the record.
General Schwartz. Thank you, sir. Unlike my counterparts
who testified here a moment ago who must address a much larger
array of requirements, we at the U.S. Special Operations
Command focus on Special Operations Forces' mission needs and
support requirements, given the authorities vested in the
Commander in Chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command by
Congress and the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF).
That support provides essential facilities to preserve and
improve capability, increase readiness of complex weapons
systems, and support demanding training in our particular
military discipline. We recommend 15 projects for your
consideration this year. Thirteen in the continental United
States and two overseas--one in the Pacific and one in the
Atlantic region. The request totals $74.5 million, of which
$70.7 million is for major construction and $3.8 million for
planning and design.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Sir, we look forward to working with you and your staff to
secure the facilities, to underwrite the readiness and
capability of your Special Operations Forces with the
straightforward goal of meeting the high expectations that the
military commanders in chief and the civilian leadership have
for these forces, and, sir, that is my statement for this
morning.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gen. Norton Schwartz
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to present
the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) fiscal year 2001
Military Construction (MILCON) budget request. Our MILCON program has a
direct, positive impact on our training and operational capabilities.
The highly specialized skills and equipment required to successfully
execute 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. Examples of construction projects that meet
this criteria are; a new media operations complex for the 4th
Psychological Operations Group at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, upgraded
air field facilities for the 16th Special Operations Wing at Hurlburt
Field, Florida, and a flight simulator for the 160th Special Operations
Aviation Regiment at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. All of the individual
construction requests are part of a component master construction plan.
Component MILCON projects are integrated at the Headquarters 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 special operations forces (SOF) to
perform their missions and ensure we have a fully trained and capable
force in the future.
MILCON PROGRAM
The fifteen military construction projects for our component
commands in this program include five projects for the U.S. Army
Special Operations Command, six for the Naval Special Warfare Command
and four for the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command. Our MILCON
budget request for fiscal year 2001 totals $74.5 million: $70.7 million
for major construction, and $3.8 million for planning and design. The
majority of our program supports replacement and renovation of current
mission facilities. 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 fifteen projects
listed by state:
Applied Instruction Facility
[In thousands of dollars]
NAB Coronado, California...................................... 4,300
Constructs a Naval Special Warfare Center's Applied Instruction
building to eliminate overcrowded conditions for Basic Underwater
Divers/Swimmers training and advanced courses. This facility is the
primary training building for Naval Special Warfare Command. It was
constructed in 1971 and is not configured or wired to support state of
the art audio-visual teaching equipment or training aids. The facility
is overcrowded and ill suited to meet the training need of the Naval
SOF community.
Small Craft Berthing Facility
[In thousands of dollars]
NAS North Island, California.................................. 1,350
This project will provide a concrete finger pier and a series of
floating docks to facilitate the entry and removal of the MK-V patrol
craft from the water. The finger pier will allow a straddle lift crane
to quickly place or recover the craft while the docks will facilitate
loading and unloading personnel and equipment. The current method of
using construction cranes to move the MK-V is inefficient and
unreliable.
Airfield Readiness Improvements
[In thousands of dollars]
Hurlburt Field, Florida....................................... 3,000
Constructs a parallel apron and taxiway along the East apron to
allow safe and efficient movement of helicopters between the runway and
parking spaces. Additionally, the taxiway will facilitate access to the
East apron for heavy airlift aircraft, e.g. C-5 and KC-10. Currently
helicopters must be respotted to allow access by large aircraft or
towed to the West apron for deployment.
Hot Cargo Pad
[In thousands of dollars]
Hurlburt Field, Florida....................................... 7,354
Constructs a parking apron for loading munitions and dangerous
cargo on to aircraft. This project is required to enable two C-5s or
three C-141s to be loaded simultaneously with munitions. It provides
access taxiways, a munitions holding area, access road, and space for
aircraft support equipment. The existing area is not large enough to
accommodate C-5s and C-141s. These aircraft must be parked on the main
taxiway during munitions operations interrupting the efficient flow of
aircraft in and out of the airfield.
Corrosion Control Facility
[In thousands of dollars]
Hurlburt Field, Florida....................................... 8,100
Constructs an adequate facility for corrosion control and composite
repair of three different types of aircraft. An effective corrosion
control program will extend the operational life of all aircraft. The
existing facility is an open-air covered wash rack. Required corrosion
control operations are severely limited by climatic conditions. Health
and explosive safety requirements cannot be maintained in this
facility. There is no existing facility to perform repairs on composite
materials.
Aerospace Ground Equipment Maintenance/Dispatch Complex
[In thousands of dollars]
Hurlburt Field, Florida....................................... 4,750
Constructs two aerospace ground equipment (AGE) maintenance
dispatch complexes to support aircraft on the West and East aprons. The
proposed shops provide space for inspection, maintenance, repair, and
servicing of AGE. The existing facility provides less than 50 percent
of the required space to service over 1,300 pieces of AGE. There is no
facility on the east side, requiring AGE to be towed or driven around
the end of the runway to move from servicing to operational areas, a
distance of two miles.
AH/MH-6 Flight Simulator
[In thousands of dollars]
Fort Campbell, Kentucky....................................... 5,400
The proposed construction project will provide the facility to
house the simulator for the Light Assault/Attack helicopter. This
facility will include operational areas, computer room, mission
briefing and planning rooms, classrooms, library/learning center,
projection areas, secure vault, SCIF, simulator modules and support
areas. Currently, aircrews train in actual aircraft. This method of
training is very costly in terms of aircrew hours, maintenance man-
hours and extra wear and tear on the aircraft.
Tactical Equipment Complex
[In thousands of dollars]
Fort Campbell, Kentucky....................................... 6,400
Builds a consolidated tactical vehicle equipment shop facility for
the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. The new facility will
replace deteriorated WWII wood structures which are functionally
inadequate and too small for the 326 vehicles and 33 maintenance
personnel servicing the 160th's mission.
Equipment Maintenance Complex
[In thousands of dollars]
Fort Campbell, Kentucky....................................... 4,500
Constructs a tactical vehicle equipment shop, deployment storage
building, equipment storage buildings and parking for the 5th Special
Forces Group (Airborne). Additional facility space is needed for the
Special Forces' expanded L-Series Table of Organization and Equipment
(LTOE) and fielding of the Desert Mobility Vehicles, trailers, and
motorcycles. Currently, this maintenance function is accomplished in
WWII wooden buildings.
Media Operations Complex
[In thousands of dollars]
Fort Bragg, North Carolina.................................... 8,600
Constructs a media production complex for the 4th Psychological
Operations Group (4 POG). To provide space for print, media and radio
operations. The 4 POG is modernizing their print and media production
as well as their communications/radio capabilities with the latest
digital equipment. The mission requires space for video and radio
production and transmission, mass production of video/radio media,
storage and administrative areas. The mission also requires space for
print production, printing presses, storage of print materials and
administrative personnel. The current facility is undersized and
inadequate for the needs of a modern media production center. The
facility lacks sound-proofing to conduct media production or radio
broadcasts while the print presses are operating. The facility also
lacks adequate power, communications and heating, ventilating and air
conditioning systems to support the latest digital equipment utilized
by the 4 POG.
Operations Support Facility
[In thousands of dollars]
NAS Oceana, Virginia.......................................... 3,400
Constructs a pre-engineered hangar and on-site storage for mission
critical logistical support. Currently, commercial facilities are
leased at Norfolk International Airport, limiting mission response
time.
Air Operations Facility
[In thousands of dollars]
NAB Little Creek, Virginia.................................... 5,400
Constructs an air operations and paraloft tower multi-story
facility for Naval Special Warfare Group 2. The facility will include
gear storage, parachute-rigging platforms and parachute loading,
rinsing, drying, packing and repair areas, office space, and
classrooms. The existing facility is severely undersized limiting air
delivery cargo size and/or requiring air operations preparations to be
conducted outside only during fair weather.
Operations Support Facility
[In thousands of dollars]
FCTC Dam Neck, Virginia....................................... 5,500
The project constructs a two-story building to support Naval
Special Warfare ordnance operations. A facility is required to provide
a safe working environment for operations personnel involved in
research, development, testing, and evaluation of ordnance procedures.
Administrative and storage space is necessary to support the unit's
administrative and planning functions and to accommodate the
substantial quantity of administrative materials, testing equipment,
and personnel gear.
Boat Maintenance Facility
[In thousands of dollars]
Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico.................... 1,241
Constructs a boat maintenance facility, boat ramp and finger piers.
Currently, the boat maintenance function is performed in temporary,
loaned facilities. Launch and recovery is being performed by crane
operations due to lack of an available boat ramp. These facility
deficits adversely impact the ability of the unit to perform required
mission.
Tactical Equipment Maintenance Complex
[In thousands of dollars]
Taegu Air Base, Korea......................................... 1,450
Constructs a tactical equipment maintenance complex consisting of a
vehicle maintenance shop, deployment storage facility, petroleum, oils,
and lubricants (POL) storage building and organizational vehicle
parking. There are no existing facilities available for this function.
Until this project is constructed, vehicle maintenance will have to be
performed outside subject to adverse weather conditions.
summary
Our proposed fiscal year 2001 MILCON budget for facility
investments will significantly improve the operational and training
capability of USSOCOM. Your support of this program is essential to
ensuring the continued development of our nation's special operations
forces.
STATEMENT OF MARSHALL H. BAILEY
Senator Burns. Thank you, General. Now, Dr. Bailey, we look
forward to your statement this morning.
Mr. Bailey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Craig. I would
like to also ask that my prepared statement be included for the
record, and I will just give some overriding comments.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Defense
Logistics Agency's 2001 military construction request for
appropriations is $192.2 million. That's for 17 projects and
for planning and design. As in previous years, the agency
continues its emphasis on sustaining and enhancing the
department's fuel storage and distribution infrastructure.
REBUILD AMERICA STRATEGIC NOBILITY
Through your support, our program to rebuild America's
strategic en route fuel infrastructure is on schedule for
completion in 2005. In fact, more than 40 percent of these
projects are already operational or under construction.
Now, this year's request includes six more projects for
$112 million to support strategic mobility at several critical
military installations. Equally important in our fuel area is
our need to correct serious environmental deficiencies at seven
fuel storage sites to satisfy agreements with State and local
regulators. Now, without this $45 million investment, these
storage facilities could potentially be shut down and
operational impacts would be severe.
In the agency's other business areas, we propose to replace
a World War I wooden warehouse with a modern controlled
humidity warehouse at our primary distribution depot in New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania. We need this warehouse for the
inspection, repair, and storage of parachutes and other air-
delivery materials.
At this installation, we also plan to replace an existing
inadequate child development center. This overcrowded facility
was previously the post jailhouse during World War II. And
finally, at one of the agency's remaining supply centers we
will replace a 40-year-old fire station and consolidate police
physical security and safety functions in a single modern
facility.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In summary, our military construction program reflects the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) vision to be America's premier
logistics combat support agency, providing vital facilities
that enhance the service's war fighting capabilities. Mr.
Chairman, this concludes my oral statement. Thank you for
asking me to appear today. If you have any questions, I will be
glad to respond.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Marshall H. Bailey
I am Marshall H. Bailey, Director of Support Services, at the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). I am pleased to have the opportunity to
provide information about DLA's fiscal year 2001 Military Construction
request.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION REQUEST
The Defense Logistics Agency has requested $192.2 million to
support our fiscal year 2001 Military Construction program. This
program consists of 17 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:
--$168.2 million for replacing deteriorated, obsolete hydrant fuel
systems and fuel storage tanks, or providing new systems, at 13
critical Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps installations;
--$13.0 million for a modern controlled-humidity warehouse at the
Defense Distribution Depot Susquehanna (New Cumberland),
Pennsylvania (DDSP);
--$4.7 million for replacing an inadequate child development center
at DDSP;
--$4.5 million for replacing an existing fire station to consolidate
public safety functions at DLA's Defense Supply Center in
Richmond, Virginia;
--$1.8 million for planning and design of future strategic en route
fuels projects.
FUEL FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE
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
Agency places a high priority on sustaining and enhancing the
Department's fuel distribution, storage, and handling infrastructure.
This year, our requested funding for critical fuel facilities
improvements amounts to 88 percent of our total military construction
program. This level of funding supports the priorities of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to provide critical fuels infrastructure to support
strategic en route mobility and correct environmental deficiencies at
Defense Fuel Support Points.
STRATEGIC EN ROUTE FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE
In support of strategic en route mobility requirements, our
proposed investment to replace old and deteriorated hydrant fuel
systems, or provide new bulk fuel storage tanks at critical overseas
bases, is $111.8 million. With Congressional support, our program to
rebuild America's strategic en route fuel infrastructure is on schedule
for completion in fiscal year 2005. More than 40 percent of these
projects are already operational or under construction.
At Andersen Air Force Base (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
hydrant system of 19 outlets for $20.0 million. This project provides
the second 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. 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.
A second project at Andersen AFB will construct two 100,000-barrel
(15,900-kiloliter (kL)) fuel storage tanks for $16.0 million to replace
fuel tanks previously demolished due to structural integrity
deficiencies. This storage capacity is needed to support strategic en
route fueling operations and contingency planning requirements.
We propose to replace a hydrant fuel system at MacDill AFB,
Florida. The $17.0 million project will provide a system of 12 modern,
pressurized fuel hydrant outlets for KC-135 fuel-tanker aircraft. The
existing 50-year-old hydrant systems are technologically obsolete,
failing, and incapable of supporting current wide-bodied aircraft
refueling requirements.
At RAF Mildenhall, United Kingdom, we propose to replace a 50-year-
old hydrant system with a new 20-outlet system for wide-bodied aircraft
and provide fuel truck unloading facilities. These unloading facilities
will give the base an alternate means of receiving fuel to supplement a
pipeline system that delivers fuel at too low a rate to support
contingency operations. This project will cost $10.0 million. A
precautionary prefinancing statement has been submitted to NATO for the
future recoupment of funds from the NATO Security Investment Program.
Two bulk fuel storage projects in Japan at Misawa Air Base ($26.4
million) and Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni ($22.4 million) each will
provide two 100,000-barrel (15,900-kL) tanks and supporting facilities
for additional fuel storage capacity for strategic en route refueling
and force projection in the Pacific. At both locations, there is
insufficient on-site storage capacity to satisfy the projected fuel
demand during a contingency. Both projects are ineligible for funding
consideration by the Japanese Facilities Improvement Program (JFIP).
Lastly, we request an additional $1.8 million to provide for
Architect-Engineer design services, surveys, and associated design
agent costs to meet our goal of programming all strategic en route fuel
projects by the end of fiscal year 2005.
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Our military construction program also includes a request for $45.4
million to correct serious environmental deficiencies at seven fuel
storage sites. The table below details the location, title, and cost of
the projects for which we are requesting approval.
TABLE 1.--DLA ENVIRONMENTAL MILCON PROJECTS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Title Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAS North Island, California...... Replace Fuel Storage $5.9
Tanks.
NAS Patuxent River, Maryland...... Replace Operating 8.3
Tanks.
NAS Fallon, Nevada................ Replace Operating 5.0
Fuel Tanks.
NAS Oceana, Virginia.............. Replace Fuel Storage 2.0
Tanks.
NAS Sigonella, Italy.............. Replace Bulk Fuel 16.3
Storage.
MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, Replace Fuel Storage 2.2
California. Tanks.
MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Replace Fuel Storage 5.7
Tanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At North Island, Patuxent River, Fallon, Cherry Point, and
Sigonella, we must replace deficient, non-compliant underground fuel
storage tanks to meet state regulatory requirements; previous
agreements with regulators; or, at Sigonella, Italian Final Governing
Standards. In each case, we propose to replace the existing tanks with
fully compliant aboveground storage tanks to avoid notices of violation
or mandatory tank closures, which would have severe operational
impacts.
At NAS Oceana, Virginia, we will replace an aboveground tank, which
failed state regulatory standards due to structural deficiencies and
was subsequently removed from service. This loss of storage capability
jeopardizes NAS Oceana's ability to conduct sustained flight
operations.
The Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms,
California, lacks permanent jet-fuel storage tanks to support its
training requirements. Jet fuel is stored in a system of tactical fuel
bladders, which are not compliant with state regulations for permanent
aboveground fuel storage systems. We propose to build two 4,200-barrel
(668 kL) aboveground steel tanks to meet state regulatory requirements
OTHER FUEL MISSION REQUIREMENTS
Our one remaining fuel project in this request is for a hydrant
fuel system at McConnell AFB, Kansas. This $11 million project will
provide 14 hydrant outlets for KC-135 fuel-tanker aircraft assigned to
this base. The project supports the U. S. Transportation Command's
requirements for critical deployment infrastructure.
DISTRIBUTION AND SUPPLY CENTER INVESTMENTS DISTRIBUTION DEPOTS
At our Defense Distribution Depot Susquehanna (DDSP) in New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania, we propose a $13.0 million Controlled
Humidity Warehouse to replace a World War I wooden warehouse currently
used to store parachutes and other air delivery materials managed by
the depot. The new warehouse will provide suitable facilities for the
inspection, repair, and storage of this specialized, high-value
material and consolidate these operations, which are now scattered in
several facilities on the depot. A World War I warehouse will be
demolished as part of this project.
At this installation, we also plan to replace an existing
inadequate child development center with a new child and youth
development center. The $4.7 million project will provide services now
being accomplished in two separate buildings-one a converted World War
II jailhouse and the other a religious education center. Neither of the
existing facilities complies with the stringent fire, safety, or
facilities standards established for the Department's accredited child
development centers. Moreover, the capacity of these facilities is
insufficient to meet the needs of DDSP and its tenant organizations.
SUPPLY CENTERS
Finally, at DLA's Defense Supply Center in Richmond, Virginia,
(DSCR) we propose to construct a new emergency services facility to
replace an existing, inadequate fire station and consolidate police,
physical security, medical clinic, and health-and-safety personnel.
This workforce, all part of the installation's Public Safety Division,
is now scattered in four locations on the Center. Temporary office
trailers and metal sheds currently augment the existing 40-year-old
fire station because it is too small to fit new fire and emergency
vehicles. A chemical decontamination room to treat employees involved
in hazardous chemical accidents will be collocated with the medical
clinic and emergency services personnel. This facility is particularly
important at this installation because it hosts the Agency's
centralized hazardous material storage depot.
SUMMARY
DLA's fiscal year 2001 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. Fourteen of the 17 projects provide vital fuel
facilities to support the Services' warfighting requirements. The
remaining three are needed to meet the Agency's non-fuel mission
requirements to sustain operations into the 21st Century.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present our fiscal
year 2001 Military Construction program.
STATEMENT OF RAY TOLLESON
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Dr. Bailey. Mr.
Tolleson.
Mr. Tolleson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Craig. I am
Ray Tolleson, the acting director for the Department of Defense
Education Activity. I would also like to request that my oral
statement be a part of the record.
Senator Burns. Without objection, it shall be.
Mr. Tolleson. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
am honored that you invited me to appear before you today to
discuss the Department of Defense Education Activity's (DoDEA)
military construction program. This committee has had a long-
standing tradition of advocacy with DoDEA programs.
DODEA PROGRAMS
You recognize, as we do, the critical necessity and value
of providing a first-rate educational program to the children
of our servicemen and women. Attracting and retaining the best
people is the foundation of our national defense. America's
military members are willing to risk their lives for their
country, but they are not willing to sacrifice their children's
future in the process. Therefore, quality education has been a
central quality of life issue for our military.
Modernizing our school facilities is an integral part of
delivering the quality education. The changing curriculum and
the growing need for integrating technology into the classroom
pose additional challenges to not only our aging school
structures, but also to those in the nation. With your help and
guidance, we have made many advances over the years in the
Department of Defense MILCON program, and we are deeply
grateful for your sustained support.
To set the stage for our discussion today, I would like to
share with you something about the Department of Defense-
operated elementary and secondary schools that exist to provide
a quality education to the dependents of our military
personnel.
This year, this segment of the United States public
education is serving well over 100,000 students in 225 schools
in 13 countries, seven states, one commonwealth, and one
territory. We are staffed with approximately 10,000 teachers
and school administrators. Students vary in background and
heritages as widely as the regions within the United States.
Our professional educators draw on rich backgrounds in the
field of education and first-hand diverse cultural experiences.
They have developed a keen international perspective in their
careers while serving military families. Their insight is
particularly valuable in our classrooms today as we become a
global economy and a tightly interrelated society.
Over the last decade, the school system has undergone
dramatic changes with the realignment of troop strengths,
particularly in Europe. We pared down the school system in
keeping with these shifts in the military mission. During the
same period, we have strengthened our educational programs.
The groundwork for improvements was laid with a multi-year,
data-driven community strategic plan crafted in 1995 with our
stakeholders. This plan identified a common vision, strategic
direction, goals, and benchmarks. DoDEA took its direction from
the President's education initiatives and eight national
educational goals. One of the most far-reaching efforts in
early childhood and student achievement represents how these
goals drive systemic changes.
READINESS FOR SCHOOL
In support of goal 1, readiness for school, we have
embarked on a 5-year initiative to increase the half-day
kindergarten program to full day in overseas schools. In this
same 5-year period, we will reduce class size in grades 1
through 3 to an average of 18 students to one teacher.
But these educational initiatives have required substantial
funding to modernize school facilities and the department has
provided the necessary funding. These schools are part of an
exceptional and unique model of education that can be
attributed in large part in unparalleled military and parental
support.
Our military construction program is important in enabling
us to provide state-of-the-art competitive and rigorous
educational programs for our students. The condition of the
Department of Defense schools and the quality of education
provided to the students are also of great concern to our
military personnel.
Quality of life has proven to be one of the most important
factors in maintaining readiness and morale of our personnel
wherever they are stationed. Military commanders have strongly
supported our construction program and have reiterated the need
for high quality education facilities as an important component
in our quality of life for personnel. The department has placed
a priority on modernizing our school facilities.
DODEA SCHOOLS
DoDEA's schools face many of the same challenges as those
of public school districts in the United States. Aging
infrastructure, overcrowded classrooms, and the need for
improvements to meet today's demand for technology create an
added burden on an already stressed budget to maintain our
facilities.
Of our 225 schools, 133 of them are of the 1960s vintage or
older and are not equipped to handle the needs of today's
curriculum. Many have multiple additions over the years to meet
the changing curriculum requirements and increased enrollments,
and not unlike other schools, regrettably, we have had to
postpone maintenance of our buildings to offset emergent
priority needs. Ultimately this has required more expensive
replacements.
Over the next five years, the department will invest
approximately $340 million in school modernization initiatives.
This includes approximately $68.7 million in both operation and
maintenance and MILCON projects over 5 years to phase in the
implementation of full-day kindergarten and class size
reductions in grades 1 through 3 to an average of 18 students
to one teacher.
In my written testimony, I highlight the fiscal year 2000
and 2001 projects to give you some sense of our facility
modernization effort.
I would like to turn my attention for a brief moment to
support needed for our military students in schools operated by
the local educational agencies.
As I stated earlier, our military parents place a high
value on the education for their children. They are expecting
that there will be no degradation in the quality of education
for their children when they move from one duty assignment to
another.
To satisfy this expectation, we must resolve the
educational challenges faced by the mobile life-style of
military members and their families. We recognize that we must
strengthen our connections with our civilian communities to
better serve the Department of Defense students.
To begin to better understand the challenges and facilitate
solutions, we are working on a proposal reduction that would
position DoDEA to develop an agenda for improvements. This
includes creating community school partnerships to plan jointly
and collaborate on the educational needs of our military
students.
FACILITY COSTS
We will also work with the Department of Education and the
Congress in ensuring that a plan is developed similar to the
one that the Department of Defense operated schools to address
the additional facility costs that result from the significant
impact of the military mission.
On this point, Congress has recognized the facility needs
of the United States public schools have been heavily impacted
by military mission stationing requirements. To assist some of
the heavily impacted schools in offsetting the extraordinary
cost of educating military students, Congress allocated $10.5
million in fiscal year 2000 for grants to local educational
agencies. These grants are to be used for repairs and
improvements required to meet classroom size requirements.
Grants have been distributed to qualifying school districts.
This year, Congress also allocated $5 million for fiscal
year 2000 to provide assistance to public school systems that
have unusually high concentrations, specific and special needs
military students. It is the intent of Congress that this money
be appropriated to schools in Hawaii. Accordingly, our military
officials in the Pacific Command (PACOM) are working with
officials in Hawaii to develop a plan to apportion the money.
As soon as we receive the plan, the department will release the
money.
We also are completing a report requested by this Committee
in fiscal year 1999 on military construction appropriations
bill to assess the conditions and adequacy of school facilities
owned by the Federal Government and school facilities at two
school districts operated by the local education agency,
Central Kitsap in Washington and Waynesville, Missouri. A final
review of the cost analysis included in the report is now
underway, and the report will be forwarded to your committee.
I have provided the status of this report in my written
testimony, and I can answer any questions you may have. I had
hoped to have that report today, and there is one more review,
but the 1999 military construction request will be available
very shortly.
Further, we are preparing a new report requested by the
fiscal year 2000 Senate report. This report requirement will
focus on the adequacy of special education services and
facilities in schools on military installations, schools that
have experienced an increase in enrollment of 20 percent or
more due to BRAC during the past five years, and schools
supporting installations designated as compassionate assignment
posts. This report will be due to Congress by the end of April,
and we fully expect that that will be available.
DoDEA has abundant facility challenges ahead of us. Our
schools must measure up to fulfilling their fundamental role--
educating students in environments conducive to learning. We
must invest in permanent facilities that can accommodate the
integration of technology into our curriculum. This means
creating sufficient resources to allow computers in all
classrooms, libraries, and other learning centers. It means
replacing and upgrading the electrical and the heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) requirements to
provide the necessary energy and power connectivity. Therefore,
the structures that were not intended for long-term use as
schools must be replaced.
In closing, I want you to know that my 30 years of
experience in administering and leading public school programs
in California tell me that Congress and this department have
much to be proud of with these schools. Your efforts and
investments in these schools are ensuring that the students of
our military services are receiving a high-quality education. I
feel fortunate to be part of this effort, even if only for an
interim period, and honored to have served my country once
again in support of such a worthy endeavor.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you for this opportunity to share our progress and
our vision for the future of the education of our Defense
children. Your strong support has helped immeasurably to build
the Department of Defense MILCON program we have today. I would
be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ray Tolleson
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am honored that you
invited me to appear before you today to discuss the Department of
Defense Education Activity (DODEA) military construction program. This
Committee has had a long-standing tradition of advocacy for DODEA's
programs. You recognize, as do we, the critical necessity and value of
providing a first rate educational program for the children of our
Service men and women. Attracting and retaining the best people is the
foundation of our national defense. America's military members are
willing to risk their lives for their country, but they are not willing
to sacrifice their children's future in the process. Therefore, quality
education has been a central quality of life issue for our military.
Modernizing our school facilities is an integral part of delivering a
quality education. As you know, the changing curriculum and the growing
need for integrating technology into the classroom pose additional
challenges to not only our aging school structures but also to those in
the nation. With your help and guidance, we have made many advances
over the years in the DOD MILCON program, and we are deeply grateful
for your sustained support.
WHO WE ARE AND WHAT HAVE WE ACCOMPLISHED
To set the stage for our discussion, today, I would like to share
with you something about the DOD-operated elementary and secondary
schools that exist to provide a quality education to the dependents of
our military personnel. This year, this segment of U.S. public
education is serving 107,976 students in 225 schools in 13 countries, 7
states, one Commonwealth, and one Territory. We are staffed with
approximately 10,000 teachers and school administrators. Students vary
in background and heritages as widely as the regions within the United
States. Our professional educators draw on rich backgrounds in the
field of education and first-hand diverse cultural experiences. They
have developed a keen international perspective in their careers while
serving military families. Their insight is particularly valuable in
our classrooms today as we become a global economy and a tightly,
interrelated society.
Over the last decade, the school system has undergone dramatic
changes with the realignment in troop strengths, particularly in
Europe. We pared down the school system in keeping with these shifts in
the military mission. As an example, in our overseas school system, our
student population decreased by 51 percent and our personnel strength
by 44 percent. We gained efficiencies by consolidating functions and
eliminating redundant layers of management and duplication of
functions. In the next two years, we will reduce further our above-
school level personnel strength by 108 additional positions.
During this same period, we strengthened our educational programs.
The groundwork for improvements was laid with a multi-year, data-driven
Community Strategic Plan crafted in 1995 that identified a common
vision, strategic direction, goals and benchmarks. Our military
leaders, parents, teachers, and school administrators came together to
help us develop our strategy. DODEA took its direction from the
President's education initiatives and eight National Educational Goals.
One of our most far-reaching efforts in early childhood and student
achievement demonstrates how these goals drive systemic changes. In
support of Goal 1, Readiness for School, we have embarked on a five-
year initiative to increase the half-day kindergarten program to full
day in our overseas schools. In this same five-year period, we will
reduce class size in grades 1-3 to an average of 18 students to 1
teacher. Both of these educational initiatives have required
substantial funding to modernize the necessary school facilities, and
the Department has provided the necessary funding. The fiscal year 2001
budget contains $17.9 million, including $10.4 million in MILCON and
the FYDP contains $50.8 million, including $40.5 million of MILCON from
fiscal year 2002-2005 for this effort.
The DOD schools are part of an exceptional and unique model of
education. This can be attributed, in large part, to the unparalleled
level of military community and parental support that DODEA enjoys. The
military community values and supports education as a critical element
of its quality of life and military readiness.
We are very proud of the accomplishments of our students. Students
consistently score well on national tests of academic performance. This
year when the results of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress tests were released, the country took notice of this
exceptional performance. National publications such as The Wall Street
Journal, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, and The Sacramento Bee
featured or editorialized about the remarkable performance of students
in DOD schools, seeing keys to improving student performance in other
schools. The performance of DOD's minority students is particularly
noteworthy. Throughout the country, African American and Hispanic
students were scoring below the expected levels, while in DOD schools,
those same student groups ranked number one and two when compared to
their peers nationally. DOD schools also had the highest percentage of
students scoring in the ``advanced'' category. We attribute that to the
focused effort of the Community Strategic Plan, the excellent teaching,
and a culture that values and supports education as a critical element
to its quality of life. And, while we are pleased with our rankings, we
know we still have a long way to go before all our student performance
meets our expectations.
ABOUT OUR DODEA MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Our military construction program is important in enabling us to
provide a state-of-the-art, competitive, and rigorous educational
program for our students. Studies have indicated a direct correlation
between the quality of the learning environment and the success rate of
the students involved. In one study, after controlling for other
variables such as student's socioeconomic status, students in school
buildings in poor condition had achievement that was six percent below
those in schools in fair condition and 11 percent below schools in
excellent condition.
Moreover, the condition of the DOD schools and the quality of
education provided to dependents are also of great concern to our
military personnel. Quality of life has proven to be one of the most
important factors in maintaining the readiness and morale of our
personnel wherever they are stationed. Military commanders have
strongly supported our construction programs, and have reiterated the
need for high quality educational facilities as an important component
in the quality of life of their personnel. Consequently, the Department
has placed a priority on modernizing our school facilities.
DODEA's schools face many of the same challenges as those of public
school districts in the United States. Aging infrastructure,
overcrowded classrooms, and the need for improvements to meet today's
demand for technology create an added burden on an already stressed
budget to maintain our facilities. Of our 225 DOD schools, 133 schools
are in buildings that are 1960's vintage or older and are not equipped
to handle the needs of today's curriculum. Many have added multiple
additions over the years to meet changing curriculum requirements and
increased enrollments. And, not unlike other schools, regrettably, we
have had to postpone maintenance of our buildings to offset emergent
priority needs. Ultimately, this has required more expensive
replacements. However, our schools encounter additional problems due to
their divergent geographical locations. Maintaining aging school
facilities in tropical locations like Okinawa or in extreme heat
conditions found in Guam or the severe climatic conditions like Iceland
taxes our facility improvement budgets and often creates requirements
for unexpected, expensive improvements.
GOALS OF THE DODEA MILCON PROGRAM
Now, I would like to turn my attention to the current goals for the
DODEA military construction program. The events of the day tell us that
we must pursue three goals: First, we must replace the most aged
facilities and those that are least able to provide an environment
conducive to the teaching and learning process. Second, we must
integrate technology capabilities in all our schools so that every
student has ready access to the high-speed information highway. Third,
we must update all our learning environments to accommodate the
rigorous and challenging academic programs aligned to meet the goals
and objectives of our Community Strategic Plan. I will explain how
these goals have manifested themselves in program changes over the past
year and how I see they will help form a stronger military construction
program for the students of our Service members and their families.
Over the next five years, the Department will invest approximately
$340 million in a school modernization initiative. This includes
approximately $68.7 million in both Operation and Maintenance and
MILCON projects over five years to phase-in the implementation of full-
day kindergarten and class size reduction in grades 1-3 to an average
of 18 students to 1 teacher. Full-day kindergarten has already been
available in most of our domestic schools. The reduction in class sizes
is consistent with the Department of Education Appropriations Act of
1999, which provided $1.2 billion for the reduction of class sizes in
U.S. public schools. This national initiative will help ensure that
every child receives personal attention, gets a solid foundation for
further learning, and learns to read independently and well by the end
of the third grade.
I would like to highlight the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001
MILCON program. For fiscal year 2000, the total MILCON program is $78
million. This will enable us to:
--Replace the gymnasium at Lakenheath Middle School Feltwell,
England, which is housed in a converted World War II era,
leaking, aircraft hangar;
--Replace the dilapidated, 35 year old Tarawa II Elementary School at
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina;
--Replace the temporary elementary school facilities at Andersen AFB,
Guam, that were used to start up school with your help and
support in fiscal year 1998; and,
--Modernize three schools with additions and renovations at Rota
Elementary School, Rota, Spain; Feltwell Elementary School,
Feltwell, England; and Laurel Bay, South Carolina. These
additions will primarily accommodate the increased enrollments.
With our Operation and Maintenance funds, we will also complete 77
percent of the full-day kindergarten requirement and 48 percent of the
primary grade, class size reduction requirement by the end of fiscal
year 2000.
Although not as ambitious as the fiscal year 2000 program, the
fiscal year 2001 MILCON construction program of $30 million will:
--Replace the outdated high school at Hohenfels, Germany;
--Replace the 47 year old facility at Russell Elementary School, Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina; and
--Complete classroom additions to the six overseas schools and one
DOD domestic school.
Further, by the end of fiscal year 2001, we will have completed 79
percent of the full-day kindergarten requirement and 54 percent of the
primary grade, class size reduction requirement. In the fiscal year
2002-2005 MILCON program, we will replace five additional aging
schools: Lakenheath Middle School, Feltwell, England; Russell ES in
Quantico, VA; Tarawa Terrace I ES and Berkley Manor ES at Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina; and Seoul Middle School, Korea. This new construction
will be complemented with many smaller projects, including renovations,
additions, and improvements at schools throughout the world. By fiscal
year 2005, we will have reduced our older facility inventory, i.e.
schools of 1960 and older, by four percent, and will have completed 100
percent of the full-day kindergarten and primary grade, class reduction
initiative. This five-year period represents a remarkable track record
of program and facility improvements.
ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
As I stated earlier, our military parents place a high value on
their education of their children. They are expecting that there will
no degradation in the quality of education for their children when they
move from one duty assignment to another. To satisfy this expectation,
we must resolve the educational challenges faced by the mobile
lifestyle of military members and their families. We recognize that we
must strengthen our connections with our civilian communities to better
serve all DOD students. To begin to better understand the challenges
and facilitate solutions, we are working on a proposal now that would
position DODEA to develop an agenda for improvements. This includes
creating community school partnerships to plan jointly and collaborate
on the education needs of our military students. We will also work with
the Department of Education and the Congress in ensuring that a plan is
developed, similar to the one in the DOD operated schools, to address
the extraordinary facility costs that result from the significant
impact of the military mission.
On this point, Congress has recognized the facility needs of many
of the U.S. public schools that have been heavily impacted by military
mission stationing requirements. To assist some of the heavily impacted
schools in offsetting the extraordinary costs of educating military
students, Congress allocated $10.5 million in the fiscal year 2000
Defense Appropriation Bill for grants to local educational authorities.
These grants are to be used for repairs and improvements required to
meet classroom size requirements. Grants of $1.5 million each have been
distributed to the following school districts:
--Silver Valley Unified School District (Ft. Irwin)
--Fort Sam Houston Independent School District (Fort Sam Houston)
--Lackland Independent School District (Lackland AFB)
--Randolph Field Independent School District (Randolph AFB)
--North Chicago District #187 (Great Lakes Naval Training Center)
The remaining balance was distributed in grants of $736.5 thousand
to the following four districts:
--Grand Forks AFB School District #140
--Fort Huachuca Accommodation Schools
--Fort Leavenworth Unified School District 207
--Minot AFB District #160
Additionally, this year Congress allocated $5 million in fiscal
year 2000 to provide assistance to public school systems that have
unusually high concentrations of special needs military dependents
enrolled, with special consideration given to school systems in states
that are considered overseas assignments. Accordingly, we are in the
process of working with the congressional staffers to facilitate the
distribution of these funds.
Also, this Committee requested in the fiscal year 1999 Military
Construction Appropriations Bill that DOD assess the conditions and
adequacy of school facilities owned by the Federal government and the
local districts that support military installations. You voiced concern
that these school facilities are in desperate need of repair,
renovation, and replacement and that they have experienced tremendous
enrollment increases because of base closures, realignments, and
changes in the military mission. You further noted that this situation
has been aggravated by an increase in the number of special needs
students.
We apologize for the delay in responding to you. The complexity and
scope of the project could not be met with in-house capabilities, and
we contracted with an outside firm to gather and compile information
required to complete the report. The study was originally structured in
three phases. The first phase reviewed the DOD Domestic Dependent
Elementary and Secondary Schools and two Special Arrangements Schools
(Dover AFB, Dover, Delaware and Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts). The second
phase included the field testing of a facility survey instrument to
distribute to eligible school districts for the assessment of their
school facilities. Two stateside, school districts that have been
experiencing specific problems related to the presence of military
dependents were selected to field-test the survey instrument. They were
Central Kitsap, Washington, and Waynesville, Missouri. Central Kitsap
has a significantly higher number of special needs children attending
their schools as a result of the nearby Bangor Submarine Base's
designation as a compassionate assignment by the Navy. At Waynesville,
Missouri, the influx of students from Ft. Leonard Wood, where
realignment has created an increase in the number of active duty
military, additional classroom space is required to absorb the increase
in enrollment. Site visits were made to each of these districts to
fully assess the impact of the presence of DOD dependents.
As we prepared to begin the third phase, the assessment of all
other eligible school districts, we received the fiscal year 2000
Senate Report. This report changed the focus of the fiscal year 1999
Senate Report by requesting DOD to report on the adequacy of special
education services and facilities in schools on military installations,
schools that have experienced an increase in enrollment of 20 percent
or more due to BRAC during the past five years, and schools supporting
installations designated as compassionate assignment posts.
Consequently, the original survey instrument was modified, and
assessments at locations meeting the new criteria are underway. We are
currently reviewing the cost analysis prepared for phases one and two
of the fiscal year 1999 Senate Report, and we anticipate forwarding
these results to this Committee shortly. The fiscal year 2000 Senate
Report requirement is due to Congress by the end of April. This effort
is on schedule, and we fully anticipate meeting our deadline.
Congress further recognized the impact experienced at Central
Kitsap, and provided $1,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 for the design of a
new special education center to help offset this cost. With appropriate
authorizing language, we will be able to forward these funds to Central
Kitsap.
FUTURE CHALLENGES
DODEA still has abundant facility challenges ahead of us. Our
schools must measure up to fulfilling their fundamental role--educating
students in environments conducive to learning. We must invest in
permanent facilities that can accommodate the integration of technology
into our curriculum. This means creating sufficient space to allow
computers in all classroom, libraries, and other learning centers. It
means replacing and upgrading the electrical and HVAC requirements to
provide the necessary energy and power connectivity. Therefore,
structures that were not intended for long-term use as schools must be
replaced. This includes, for example, consolidating the 13 buildings at
Lakenheath Middle School, Feltwell, England for students in grades 6-8;
replacing the Guam Elementary/Middle School on the Naval Activity and
the high school currently located in renovated office space; and
replacing portable facilities that have long outlived their shelf life.
It not reasonable to expect that our new learning methodologies can be
integrated in such outdated facilities.
This is an unprecedented time in U.S. history. Education has become
a national priority, and historic investments and improvements in
education are being sought. Our U.S. military members join our civilian
parents nationwide in demanding a competitive, rigorous education
program that enables their children to become productive and
contributing members of society in this century. The Department of
Defense has placed education high on its list to ensure the education
in our DOD operated schools is a coveted incentive for military
service.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I want you to know that my 30 years of experiences in
administering and leading public education programs in California tell
me that Congress and this Department have much to be proud of with
these schools. Your efforts and investments in these schools are
ensuring that the students of our military Services are receiving a
high-quality education. I feel fortunate to be part of this effort,
even if for only an interim period, and honored to have served my
country once again in support of such a worthy endeavor.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our progress and our vision
for the future of the education of our Defense children. Your strong
support has helped immeasurably to build the DOD MILCON program we have
today.
STATEMENT OF DIANA TABLER
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Tolleson. We appreciate that.
Ms. Diana Tabler. Thank you very much, and we are looking
forward to your testimony on TRICARE.
Ms. Tabler. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members
of the Committee. I am Diana Tabler, Deputy Executive Director
of the TRICARE Management Activity in the office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. We have as
part of our responsibility, planning and oversight of tri-
service medical construction request each year.
FUNDING FOR MAJOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Our request this year is for funding for 13 major
construction projects for medical, totaling $202.887 million.
The largest feature seeks the second phase of the hospital
replacement project at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. That $44
million we are asking for will begin the construction of the
main structures of the new 32-bed hospital.
In addition, we are requesting $43.85 million which will
allow us to purchase the completed medical/dental facility at
Naples, Italy. This is a major quality of life improvement for
the Commander in Chief (CINC) in Europe and also satisfies the
direction of this committee to look at the overall anticipated
life cycle cost of our long-term lease there. This is the best
decision and the best request for the taxpayers and will result
in a very good hospital scheduled to open later next summer.
At Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, we are asking $37
million for a significant life safety upgrade to the inpatient
facilities of the old hospital and consolidation of some 15
outlying buildings. This is one of the busiest hospitals in the
Air Force, seeing something like 80,000 beneficiaries.
This request also includes some very important projects at
Camp Pendleton for our Marines, including the space for our
fleet hospital operations and three new primary care clinics at
Horno, Las Flores, and Las Pulgas at Camp Pendleton. Finally,
there are several other clinics including two overseas clinics
in Germany. None of our overseas projects qualifies for any
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) funding or host
nation support. We are also requesting funding for a veterinary
treatment facility at Fort Drum.
Two projects of interest to this committee, the Armed
Forces Institute of Pathology and the Graduate School of
Nursing for the Uniformed Services University, though not in
this budget, are in intense review and evaluation in the
department and will be forthcoming in future programs. We will
have reports up to you this spring for that.
PREPARED STATEMENT
That concludes my brief statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions you have about our budget.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Diana Tabler
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Diana
Tabler, Deputy Executive Director for 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 highlight the
Department's fiscal year 2001 Medical Military Construction Program
budget request. I'd like to present a brief overview of our fiscal year
2001 Medical Military Construction Program.
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 2001 program requests appropriations of $177,887,000
for 13 major construction projects. We are also seeking $3,000,000 for
unspecified minor construction and $22,000,000 for planning and design
efforts to complete designs on fiscal year 2002 projects and to
commence design on projects identified for fiscal year 2003. The total
request for this appropriation is $202,887,000.
This budget seeks the second phase of the $133 million Hospital
Replacement project at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. The $44,000,000
requested will start the construction of the main structures of the new
32-bed hospital to replace the current Bassett Army Community Hospital
built in 1951 as a 300-bed facility. $18,000,000 has been appropriated
to date for this project. We ask your continued support for this
hospital.
The hospital purchase at Naples, Italy requires a total of
$43,850,000 in military construction appropriations. The United States
Government will purchase a completed Medical/Dental Facility (Hospital)
to support relocation of Naval activities as part of the U.S. Naval
Support Initiative. The project is sited on leased land of the U.S.
Naval Support Site. This project is a Commander-in-Chief, European
Forces, Quality-of-Life priority to ensure the health and well being of
our beneficiaries in the Naples area. This project satisfies the
Congressional direction in the fiscal year 1998 House Appropriations
Report 105-150 which strongly encouraged the Department to reevaluate
the anticipated life-cycle costs for the hospital and to request to
buy-out the lease at the most opportune time. This facility will
provide health care in support of the U. S. Naval Support Site,
currently located approximately 30 kilometers from its present location
in an existing inadequate leased facility.
The Hospital Addition/Alteration/Life Safety Upgrade at Eglin Air
Force Base, Florida requires $37,600,000 in appropriations. This
hospital provides support to over 80,000 eligible beneficiaries. This
is one of the largest beneficiary catchment area populations in the Air
Force. The project provides consolidation of services from 15 outlying
buildings on a very large base and also provides life safety and
utilities upgrades for the hospital to meet current life safety and
fire codes.
This budget request includes one medical readiness project, the
Fleet Hospital Operations Training Command Support Facilities, at Camp
Pendleton, California for $2,900,000.
Our budget request also includes eight medical and/or dental
clinics that are either replacements or additions/alterations. They
are:
--Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement at Horno, Camp Pendleton,
California for $3,950,000;
--Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement at Las Flores, Camp Pendleton,
California for $3,550,000;
--Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement at Las Pulgas, Camp Pendleton,
California for $3,750,000;
--Medical Clinic Replacement/Dental Clinic Alteration at Edwards Air
Force Base, California for $17,900,000;
--Medical Clinic Replacement at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida for
$2,700,000;
--Medical Clinic Addition/Alteration at Tyndall Air Force Base,
Florida for $7,700,000;
--Health/Dental Clinic Addition/Life Safety Upgrade at Kitzingen,
Germany for $1,400,000; and
--Health/Dental Clinic Addition/Alteration at Wiesbaden, Germany for
$7,187,000.
We also have a Veterinary Treatment Facility at Fort Drum, New York
for $1,400,000. This facility will be a state-of-the-art Veterinary
Treatment Facility for the Tri-Service, DOD mission. It will provide
administration offices for the food inspection mission that covers
sixty facilities across the state of New York. It will provide full
veterinary services for military working dogs and will ensure our
veterinarians and technicians maintain and practice their professional
skills so vitally important to the safeguarding of our troops and their
assigned mission.
No portion of the three overseas facilities, Kitzingen, Germany,
Wiesbaden, Germany, and Naples, Italy, is eligible for NATO funding or
host nation funding.
The fiscal year 2000 Authorization Conference Report 106-301
directed the TRICARE Management Activity to submit a plan to fix the
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology facility deficiencies as part of
the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget Submission. The requirements
are being defined, evaluated, and validated. No decision has been made
yet how to fund the preliminary estimated project requirement of over
$200 million. I would expect a final report to be submitted to you in
April 2000. This facility is in urgent need of corrective action and we
are exploring all avenues of possibilities.
The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences is seeking
to consolidate its graduate school of nursing. The school is currently
split between the University and off-campus leased spaces. The fiscal
year 2000 House Appropriations Report 106-221 directed that this
project be included in the fiscal year 2001 medical budget request. The
Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED), as the executive agent for
the University, is currently conducting a study to revalidate the
requirements and determine the best economic solution. The study is
expected to be complete in July 2000. After that a decision will be
made on an appropriate year of funding.
CONCLUSION
This committee has been very supportive of our medical construction
program in the past and I look forward to working with you. The fiscal
year 2001 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. I thank you for the opportunity to
present our budget. This concludes my overview statement of the fiscal
year 2001 Medical Military Construction budget request.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. I think Senator Craig
has some questions with regard to TRICARE. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Ms. Tabler. While your primary responsibility may be
construction at hospitals, I am going to ask you to take a
message back to your boss. We are having a struggle in Idaho
and in rural western states with military facilities as it
relates to TRICARE and the willingness on the part of the
private health care providers to accept TRICARE when in many
instances, and I know it is certainly true in Idaho, doctors
still reject the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in a
general sense.
MEDICAL CARE UNDER TRICARE
As a result of that, Idaho is having a very difficult time
recruiting doctors to provide medical care under TRICARE, and
straightaway TRICARE rates are less than Medicare, so there is
in some instances no monetary incentive for doctors to pick up
our military personnel and their families. So I need an answer,
and we have been working on this, we have got to resolve it.
Several of our wings and part of Mountain Home Air Force
Base has been in Europe and in the desert almost consistently
since Desert Storm. Many of those airmen leave their families
behind and worry--and they do, and they have expressed to me
directly that they cannot have health care or they are now
sacrificing and taking it out of their personal benefits in a
way that should not happen.
So what is the alternative? Well, if you know the
demographics--not the demographics, but the geography and the
distance of Mountain Home Air Force Base and Salt Lake City 300
miles away and Seattle 600 miles away, that is quality health
care. That has got to get resolved.
Now, TRICARE is working in other parts of the country. I
have spent some time looking at it, but it is not working here,
and instead of saying, well, it is just a bump, that means that
people are taking the bumps, not the system. People. Airmen and
women in this instance. And I am saying to you that I have
nudged this system around and studied it for the last couple of
years with not much resolution, some slight improvements.
We need to look at making exceptions unique to areas where
these kinds of conflicts or frustrations exist. One size is not
fitting all in this instance, and so this is not the last time
that we will be visiting about this, but I hope it is an
ongoing dialogue that resolves it.
Ms. Tabler. Sir, I thank you. We totally acknowledge your
concern in this area and in fact are taking steps through our
regulatory process to revise the way that we pay physicians in
remote areas, such as the Mountain Home area where, as you say
so accurately and eloquently, we have problems recruiting
people into not only the TRICARE program, but to Medicare as
well, quite honestly, and our maximum allowable payment under
TRICARE is equal to or greater than that paid under Medicare.
Nonetheless, in some remote areas, that continues to be a
problem. Our payments have increased significantly in recent
years. Our recent update in February of this year was 7 percent
over last year, and so we have seen over the last three years
increases each year----
Senator Craig. That seems to be helping a bit.
Ms. Tabler [continuing]. And I think that will help, but I
will be happy to come back to you and provide detail on our
proposed strategy for targeting payments where access to care
is truly impeded by the limited number of providers in areas
such as yours.
Senator Craig. And with these increases, I think we ought
to go right back in and look at them and see, is this gaining
us, is this providing the access we need or thought it would,
and if it is not, we ought to, instead of waiting--I mean, it
does not take very long to understand whether it is working or
not and review it again to see whether we need to make some
additional adjustments.
Ms. Tabler. Yes, sir, we totally agree.
Senator Craig. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Craig. I have a couple of
questions for Mr. Tolleson. I am very interested, when I visit
military facilities and see the education facilities, I am
happy about that, and I am happy about your enthusiasm. I also
want to go a little bit different direction. Do you oversee and
are you in charge of, let us say, continuing adult education
also that we find on our military installations?
DISTANCE LEARNING
Mr. Tolleson. No, we are not. We are not responsible. That
is handled in a different area.
Senator Burns. That is in a different area?
Mr. Tolleson. Yes.
Senator Burns. Distance learning as far as remote schools
on bases?
Mr. Tolleson. We handle distance learning for our students
in our schools that are on military bases. We offer some 16
different courses right now. We have an enrollment of about 500
students, I believe, systemwide.
Senator Burns. I see. Well, I would like to talk about
continuing education because we find that that is pretty
important, too. In fact, it is becoming more important all the
time with our people in uniform. And I know it is especially
whenever you say we are moving force structure, what is it, 52
percent of our military now are in Reserves and Guard? And
there is continuing pressure to be put on our Guard, and when
they are called up for special duties, and that happens to be a
part of that.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I have no other questions for General Schwartz or Dr.
Bailey or any of you this morning. We will go through and work
with you as we work through this process. If we have any
questions, why, make sure if you want to respond, respond to
the full committee, and we will be happy to work with you as we
work our way through this thing.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
------
Questions Submitted to General Norton Schwartz
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
STATUS OF SOF RELOCATIONS FROM PANAMA TO PUERTO RICO
Question. General Schwartz, will you describe the status of the
relocation of Special Operations Forces from Panama to Puerto Rico?
Answer. The United States Southern Command Special Operations
Command (SOCSOUTH) has successfully completed its relocation from Fort
Clayton and Corozal, Panama, to Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, and is
fully operational.
ROOSEVELT ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES AND VIEQUES IMPACT ON
TRAINING
Question. What are the infrastructure challenges that your forces
face at Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, such as aviation hangars,
barracks, and family housing? Does the situation on Vieques impact your
ability to train?
Answer. The infrastructure challenges that special operations
forces (SOF) face at Roosevelt Roads include the renovation and
construction of hangar, maintenance, armory, operations, and
headquarters facilities, as well as barracks and family housing. Many
of the Roosevelt Roads based SOF units are operating from temporary
facilities, but plans have been developed to move them into permanent
facilities by fiscal year 2002-2003. For example, helicopters of Delta
Company, 3rd Battalion, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment
(Airborne) are not sheltered and maintenance is being performed in the
open or in Navy hangars on a space available basis. In support of the
unit, Program Budget Decision (PBD)-715R programmed fiscal year 2002
construction of a headquarters, operations, and maintenance hangar.
Additionally, the Special Operations Facility supporting Naval Special
Warfare Unit FOUR military construction project was awarded on February
4, 2000. However, the Navy subsequently directed a ``stop work'' on the
project pending resolution of the Vieques training range issues in
Puerto Rico. Therefore, construction of this facility is on hold. With
regards to housing, Roosevelt Roads lacks an adequate supply of
permanent and transient quarters, as well as adequate on-base housing.
Currently, Roosevelt Roads has over 2,500 active duty and family
members residing off base. Additional military construction projects
are planned to construct sufficient barracks for SOF personnel needs.
In short, sir, facilities at present are adequate to sustain mission
activity, but they require immediate attention. Our people deserve our
best effort here.
Finally, training on Vieques offers Fleet SEALs an unparalleled
opportunity for realistic training as part of Carrier Battle Groups
(CVBG), Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG), SUBLANT and AIRLANT assets or in
independent across-the-beach scenarios.
MILCON CONTINGENCY FUNDING
Question. Will losing MILCON contingency funding in the fiscal year
2001 budget impact the Command's ability to execute projects?
Answer. The loss of contingency funds is not expected to result in
the cancellation or delay of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)
construction projects, but there is an increased risk that the
reduction will compromise USSOCOM's ability to maintain full authorized
project scope and high construction standards. A modest management
reserve is common practice across industry and elsewhere in government.
Eliminating these funds will ultimately diminish project content.
Questions Submitted to Marshall Bailey
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
Question. Mr. Bailey, I see that there are six projects in the
fiscal year 2001 budget to replace existing Hydrant Fuel Systems or
Fuel Storage Tanks. Please describe the long-term plan to replace the
aging DOD fuel infrastructure?
Answer. In December 1991, DLA was assigned with MILCON funding
responsibilities for base level and intermediate petroleum storage and
hydrant systems. The majority of the systems DLA inherited were 40-50
years old. Additionally, in 1997 the Commanders-In-Chief (CINC's)
identified numerous shortfalls in strategic airlift en route fuel
infrastructure. At that time DLA estimated that the backlog of fuels
MILCON projects to be over $1 Billion.
The backlog of proposed projects is reviewed annually with the
Joint Staff, geographic CINC's, U.S. Transportation Command and
Military Services to establish priorities. The projects are categorized
by requirements as en route, environmental, or operational:
--En route projects support strategic mobility requirements. These
facilities are old and deteriorated. All currently identified
en route projects are programmed in the DOD Future Year
Development Plan (FYDP). Our en route MILCON program is on
schedule for completion in 2005. In fact, more than 40 percent
of these projects are already operational or under
construction.
--Environmental projects replace deteriorating fuels infrastructure
to meet CONUS and overseas environmental standards. Projects to
correct all currently identified non-compliant environmental
conditions are programmed in the current DOD FYDP. Projects
which remain unfunded address overall environmental goals to
maintain compliance or prevent pollution. These projects will
be programmed in subsequent FYDPs.
--All other projects not classified as en route or environmental are
classified operational. Funding requirements and execution
timeframes currently extend beyond the current DOD FYDP.
DLA and the Military Services are aggressively pursuing
alternatives to fuels MILCON. Alternate funding sources include host
nation support, privatization, and maintenance and repair projects.
These initiatives are expected to result in a modest reduction in fuels
MILCON requirements in the future.
Question. Please describe your MILCON program associated with
environmental compliance?
Answer. Our environmental compliance MILCON program closely follows
Defense Planning Guidance. Based on this direction, we give priority to
projects that correct non-compliant environmental conditions. These
projects replace deteriorating infrastructure to meet CONUS and
overseas environmental standards. All currently identified
environmental projects in this category are programmed in the current
DOD FYDP. Projects which remain unfunded address overall environmental
goals to maintain compliance or prevent pollution. These projects will
be programmed in subsequent FYDPs. The following is a list of our
MILCON projects driven by environmental compliance as shown in the
FYDP:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Location Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
01.......................... Sigonella, IT.. Replace Bulk 16.3
Fuel Storage
Facility.
01.......................... Patuxent River, Replace 8.3
MD. Operating Fuel
Tanks.
01.......................... Twentynine Fuel Storage 2.2
Palms, CA. Facility.
01.......................... Fallon, NV..... Replace 5.0
Operating Fuel
Tanks.
01.......................... Cherry Point, Replace Fuel 5.7
NC. Storage Tanks.
01.......................... North Island, Replace Fuel 5.9
CA. Storage Tanks.
01.......................... Oceana, VA..... Replace Fuel 2.0
Storage Tank.
03.......................... Eielson, AK.... Construct Fuel 9.4
Storage Tank.
03.......................... Fairford, UK... Replace Hydrant 14.8
Fuel System.
03.......................... Rota, SP....... Construct 1.0
Marine Loading
Arms.
03.......................... Kaiserslautern, Relocate Scrap \1\ 2.4
GE. Yard.
03.......................... Various Conforming 1.5
Locations. Storage
Facilities.
04.......................... Minot, ND...... Replace Hydrant 15.2
Fuel System.
04.......................... Ft Carson, CO.. Replace Bulk 6.7
Fuel Storage
Facility.
04.......................... Roosevelt Construct Fuel \1\ 1.6
Roads, PR. Storage.
04.......................... Roosevelt Replace 3.0
Roads, PR. Pipeline.
04.......................... Eglin, FL...... Construct Fuel 1.5
Unload Pier.
04.......................... Various Conforming 3.1
Locations. Storage
Facilities.
04.......................... New Cumberland, Replace Boilers \1\ 2.0
PA.
05.......................... Ft Polk, LA.... Construct Fuel 1.6
Storage
Facility.
05.......................... Key West, FL... Construct Tank. 1.9
05.......................... Pearl Harbor, Replace Fuel 9.5
HI. Tanks.
05.......................... Langley, VA.... Hydrant Fuel 10.5
System.
05.......................... Pope, NC....... Replace Hydrant 12.9
Fuel System.
05.......................... Various Conforming 3.1
Locations. Storage
Facilities.
05.......................... Ft Meade, MD... Hazardous 1.4
Property
Facility.
05.......................... Colorado Hazardous 0.5
Springs, CO. Property
Facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Projects with environmental and operational requirements.
Question. Will the loss of DLA's contingency funding in the fiscal
year 2001 budget impact the agency's ability to successfully execute
your MILCON program?
Answer. We do not anticipate any adverse impact in fiscal year
2001. We are hoping to cover any shortfalls with savings resulting from
favorable bids on other fiscal year 2001 and prior-year projects, as
allowed by existing MILCON statutes. However, construction changes do
occur, and we cannot predict future construction bidding trends. We do
expect adverse impacts on the program in the outyears if contingency
funds continue to be eliminated.
______
Questions Submitted to Ray Tolleson
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENT SCHOOLS (DODDS)
Question. Mr. Tolleson, I understand that the Department has been
surveying their schools and will report to the Congress within the next
couple of months. Can you describe some of the preliminary assessments
of the review?
Answer. There are essentially two separate reports that respond to
the Congressional inquiry.
The first report addresses the conditions and adequacy of
facilities for students, including those with special needs at the DOD
Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS), two
special arrangement schools (Dover Air Force Base (AFB) and Hanscom
AFB), as well as Waynesville, Missouri and Central Kitsap, Washington.
The second report addresses the adequacy of special needs services
and facilities at school districts throughout the U.S. that have been
heavily impacted by changes in military stationing, and Local Education
Agency and Department of Education-owned schools on military
installations. The second report assesses the impact of increased
special education requirements and the adequacy of special education
services and facilities, and recommends corrective measures. Within
this report, data is provided that identifies costs that can be
attributed to military dependents receiving special education services.
Question. The fiscal year 2001 Budget requests funding for
classroom additions at seven locations. What will these projects
accomplish and why are they so important?
Answer. These seven projects are necessary to provide additional
classroom space needed to implement full-day kindergarten and reduced
class sizes in grades 1-3. These programs were implemented in DODEA
schools beginning in school year (SY) 1999-2000 at locations where
existing facilities were already available. In SY 2000-2001, these
programs will be offered at additional schools where space could be
provided through Operation and Maintenance funded renovation or
construction work. During the next three fiscal years, DODEA will be
executing Military Construction projects at the remaining elementary
school sites to enable both programs to be fully implemented in all
DODEA elementary schools by SY 2004-2005.
Question. How will full-day kindergarten and reduced-class size
initiatives impact the Department of Defense school system?
Answer. Full-day Kindergarten. Research confirms that attendance in
a full-day kindergarten results in measurable academic and social
benefits for students. Full-day kindergartners exhibit more independent
learning, classroom involvement, and productivity in work with peers,
and reflectiveness than students in half-day programs. Increased time
in the program results in less stress for children, decreased
discipline problems, and increased time and emphasis on language
development and appropriate preliteracy experiences. Teachers have more
time to assess students, individualize instruction, and develop
children's social skills (including conflict resolution strategies).
Finally, parents have more satisfaction with a full day program. Early
indications from DODEA's full-day programs are that more children are
beginning to read and write at earlier stages than in the half-day
programs.
Reduced Class Size. Reducing class size in the primary grades
provides teachers the ability to give more individual attention to
students and to manage more orderly classrooms. As noted in the
National Academy of Sciences report, ``Preventing Reading Difficulties
in Young Children,'' smaller classes combined with quality professional
development promote effective teaching and learning. This is especially
important in the early years when all children must learn to read well.
In Project STAR, a major Tennessee study, researchers found that
students in smaller classes earned significantly higher scores in basic
skills tests. Follow-up studies have shown that these achievement gains
continued after the students returned to regular size classes. As a
result of the DODEA reduced class size initiative, we expect all
children to be able to read on grade level by third grade, discipline
problems to be decreased thereby leaving more time for instruction, and
teachers to be better able to identify and address students' needs on
an individual basis. These effects are expected to result in increased
student achievement and decreased achievement gaps among student
groups.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Mr. Tolleson, as you noted in your prepared testimony,
the fiscal year 2000 Military Construction Appropriations bill contains
language requiring a study of the adequacy of special education
services available to military dependents on installations identified
as ``compassionate assignment'' posts. I appreciate the effort that
your office has given to this study since the fiscal year 2000 bill was
enacted, and I wonder if you could elaborate on the status of that
study. Can you give me a preview of your findings?
Answer. The study has been completed, and the Final Report is
presently being coordinated. Essentially, the Report identifies school
districts with schools located on military installations, school
districts that have experienced an increase in enrollment of 20 percent
or more during the 5-year reporting period between 1993/94 and 1998/99
resulting from BRAC, and school districts supporting compassionate
assignment posts. The Report further assesses the impact of increased
special education requirements, the adequacy of special education
services and facilities, and recommends corrective measures. Data is
provided to identify the costs attributable to military dependents
receiving special education services in regards to needed improvements
in facilities and services.
Question. Could you describe the nature of a ``compassionate
assignment'' post, where these bases are located in the continental
United States, and how they are impacted by special needs children?
Answer. The Department of the Navy is the only military service
that has established ``compassionate assignment'' posts for its service
members who have dependents with special needs. There are five such
locations within the continental United States, and they are:
Bremerton, Washington; Jacksonville, Florida; Norfolk, Virginia; San
Diego, California; and Washington, DC. Compassionate assignment posts
are defined as those locations that have adequate medical facilities
and services for military dependents with special needs. Improved
services and facilities are highly desirable and would contribute to
improving the overall quality of special education services. However,
it was found that school districts serving compassionate assignment
posts meet the standards of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA).
Question. Based on the information that you have received to date,
can you draw any conclusions as to what type of federal assistance
these bases will need to adequately meet the educational requirements
of special needs students?
Answer. The report recommends that existing federal programs such
as Impact Aid or the authorization of Block Grants be expanded to cover
the additional costs experienced by local school districts that have
resulted from the military stationing decisions.
Question. As you know, the designation of Washington's Bangor
Submarine Base as a compassionate assignment post has had a major
impact on the Central Kitsap School District. The school facilities
study language in the fiscal year 2000 bill stipulates a recommendation
for corrective measures. What type of corrective measures are you
considering in your study?
Answer. The Department of the Navy does not designate individual
installations as compassionate assignment posts, but rather locations
within the continental United States that serve one or more
installation in the region. Hence, Bremerton, Washington is designated
as a compassionate assignment post, and not just the Bangor Submarine
Base. Bangor Submarine Base is within the compassionate assignment area
and is serviced by three separate and distinct school districts;
namely, Bremerton School District 100-C; South Kitsap School District;
as well as Central Kitsap School District. Corrective measures
considered in the report include one-time costs for facility
construction or renovation to enhance the special needs programs, as
well as costs associated with hiring and training of new teachers;
procurement of teaching tools and supplies; and other one-time costs
the districts have identified as needed to improve the services
provided to special needs students.
Question. In the testimony that you submitted to this Committee,
you also referenced the $1 million in planning funds that his Committee
appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for a special education center to
serve the military personnel assigned to Bangor Submarine Base.
Planning and design money is regularly appropriated for projects that
are not yet authorized or even included in the Future Years' Defense
Plan. Why is it your opinion that this provision requires a separate
authorization before you will release the funds?
Answer. The Department of Defense has determined that the project
at Bangor Submarine Base is not a military construction project since
ownership of the completed facility would be with the Central Kitsap
School district rather than the Department of Defense. See the attached
January 27, 2000 letter.
Question. It appears, from reading your testimony, that DODEA's
fiscal year 2001 Military Construction budget is less than half of the
total fiscal year 2000 budget ($30 million in fiscal year 2001 as
compared with $78 million in fiscal year 2000). Given the
infrastructure challenges that you are facing, do you believe that is
an adequate amount of funding?
Answer. DODEA's fiscal year 1999 military construction program
included construction of a $44 million elementary school at Andersen
AFB, resulting from a Secretary of Defense decision in 1997 to
establish DOD schools for military dependents on Guam.
Like school districts across the United States, many of DODEA's
facilities are old and in need of replacement or major repairs. We are
addressing the most urgent of those requirements and hope to increase
the funding earmarked for this purpose during the next few years. In
support of this effort, we plan to complete a comprehensive study of
our facilities worldwide in order to determine the best solution for
our schools and program future projects accordingly.
Much of the focus of DODEA's military construction efforts during
the next 3 years will be to provide additional classroom space
necessary to implement a full day kindergarten program and reduced
class sizes in grades 1-3. Implementation of these programs began
during school year 1999-2000, mirroring the Presidential initiatives
for stateside public schools.
The construction program for overseas schools, in particular, was
relatively dormant throughout the 90's as military drawdown and
realignment took place throughout Europe. Now that military stationing
and student enrollments have stabilized, a concentrated catch-up effort
is required to address deficiencies. In addition, new requirements to
provide technology in the classroom and anti-terrorism measures needed
at many of our schools have created a greater need for military
construction projects throughout DODEA.
Construction efforts providing these classrooms at six sites in
Europe now appear to be more expensive than initially envisioned, and
require additional funding in fiscal year 2001 to be completed. Site-
specific construction requirements, anti-terrorism measures, and higher
than expected construction costs have created a deficit of $7.7 million
needed to fully construct these projects. While DODEA is working with
the Corps of Engineers and others to reduce these costs, the
implementation of these educational initiatives at some locations may
be delayed if additional funding is not secured.
Question. I also note in your testimony that 133 of the DOD schools
are in buildings that are of 1960s vintage or older, and yet your
MILCON budget calls for reducing the inventory of these older
facilities by only 4 percent by 2005. This seems like a very low
replacement rate. How will this pace affect the backlog of aging
schools in the years beyond 2005?
Answer. DODEA operates a large number of schools in aging
facilities that need to be replaced. The current replacement rate is
not sufficient in the long term to adequately address these
requirements. DODEA plans to request additional military construction
funding in future years so that outdated facilities can be replaced as
soon as possible with state-of-the-art, purpose built schools which
meet the needs of today's educational requirements. Completion of the
survey of DODEA facilities will provide a basis for future military
construction requirements.
Question. Fairchild Air Force Base in Washington State is the site
of an antiquated DOD-built elementary school that is now operated by
the local school district. The school is in deplorable condition;
according to the school district, it is no longer cost effective to
continue trying to repair it. The school is on the base, it is for the
dependents of base personnel, and the school district cannot afford to
build a new school. I know that you recognize the importance of good
schools as part of the quality of life package that we owe our military
personnel. Given the age of your infrastructure inventory, Fairchild is
probably not the only base in this situation. What is the solution?
Answer. There are many schools owned by the federal government or
local school districts located in the United States that are in need of
major repair or replacement. While all of these schools are important
in maintaining a high quality education for military dependents,
repairs or replacements of schools not operated by the Department of
Defense has been under the purview of the Department of Education.
Historically, the Department of Education has not been funded to the
level required to replace these older facilities on a systematic basis.
To properly address the existing facility deficiencies that these
districts face, additional funding should be provided through the
Department of Education to replace or upgrade outdated school
facilities supporting military dependents where local financial
assistance is not available.
Question. In your testimony, you note that DODEA is working on a
proposal to develop an agenda for improvements to civilian operated
education facilities serving DOD dependents, including community school
partnerships. Would you please elaborate on the details of your
proposal, and provide a time frame for when you anticipate completing
it.
Answer. An office has been established within the Ofice of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family
Policy (MC&FP). A major responsibility of this office will be to
interface with local school districts. The proposal is still being
developed and we will forward it to you when it is finalized.
______
Questions Submitted to Diana Tabler
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
DOD MEDICAL FACILITIES
Question. Ms. Tabler, please describe the two big hospital projects
intended for Alaska and in Naples, Italy.
Answer. The Bassett Army Community Hospital (BACH) Replacement
project at Fort Wainwright, Alaska was authorized for $133 million in
the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. This five-
year, phase-funded project constructs a new 32-bed inpatient facility
and outpatient clinics to replace the existing 1950s-era, 300-bed
inpatient facility to support approximately 25,000 military
beneficiaries at Ft. Wainwright, nearby Eielson and Clear Air Force
Bases. It will be the only military inpatient treatment facility within
interior Alaska. Phase I (site preparation) of this project will be
under construction soon.
Naval Hospital Replacement project at Naples, Italy is under
construction as part of the lease/build/buy agreement signed by the
Navy with a private developer in 1998. This project replaces and
relocates the existing inadequate leased facility from Agnano location
to Gricignano (30 KM away) support site as part of the congressionally
approved Naples Improvement Initiative. The project builds a new 26-bed
hospital to meet healthcare requirements of the U.S. military
beneficiaries in the Naples area.
Question. Ms. Tabler, you have a fairly robust medical military
construction program in fiscal year 2000. What is the backlog of your
medical/dental construction/renovation requirements?
Answer. Our fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 programs may
appear fairly robust on the surface, but we have a huge backlog of
construction and renovation requirements for our healthcare facilities.
In the military construction arena, this backlog is over $3.3 billion
as identified in the Services' fiscal year 2002-07 POM submission.
Question. What is the average recapitalization period for
Department of Defense Medical Facilities? How does that compare to the
private sector?
Answer. Based on our current plant replacement value of
approximately $17 billion in fiscal year 2000 dollars and planned
(fiscal year 2002-07 FYDP) expenditure of $166 million per year in
major construction, our average facility replacement cycle is 102
years. This assumes no further erosion of planned MELCON funding and
adequate funding for the routine facility sustainment, operation and
maintenance. Our goal is a 50-year replacement cycle for all military
healthcare facilities, including medical training and research
facilities. Based on preliminary data available, the private sector
standard is less than 25 years. This does not mean that the private
sector plans to replace the facilities every 25 years but merely
implies that a major renovation will be required every 25 years to stay
competitive. In the meantime, adequate investment will be made to
sustain and maintain the building infrastructure. Private sector
investment is based on first-cost tax incentives, whereas federal
investment must be based on mission and life cycle cost analysis.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Burns. The next hearing of the subcommittee will be
on March the 7th. We will hear from the Army and the Air Force
with military construction, and we appreciate everybody coming
this morning. If we have questions for you, we will certainly
be in touch with you. Thank you very much. This hearing is
recessed.
[Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., Tuesday, February 29, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:03 a.m., in room SD-116, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Craig, Stevens, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
STATEMENT OF PAUL W. JOHNSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY (INSTALLATIONS AND HOUSING)
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MAJ. GEN. MILTON HUNTER, DIRECTOR OF MILITARY PROGRAMS, U.S.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MAJ. GEN. ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP, JR., ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF
FOR INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT
BRIG. GEN. ROBERT M. DIAMOND, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. ARMY RESERVE
BRIG. GEN. MICHAEL J. SQUIER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL
GUARD
OPENING STATEMENT
Senator Burns. Senator Murray is on her way. While she is
getting here, I can be making my statement.
The Subcommittee on Military Construction of the
Appropriations Committee is officially open this morning. I
want to welcome everybody here. This also covers family
housing, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and Reserve
component programs for the Army and the Air Force for fiscal
year 2001. And, of course, it is always good to welcome our
Army here, the Secretary, and all of his representatives.
It is good to see friendly faces. You have been here
before, and we have been doing business quite a while, we
appreciate that. I have General Hunter of the Corps of
Engineers; Major General Antwerp, who is the Chief of Staff for
Installation and Management; and, General Diamond. Good to see
you and the other folks. It looks like we are going to end up
with less money this year, which is no surprise to us.
I got to looking back on figures when I was put on this
committee. I think our budget was up around $11 billion,
something like that, or a little over $11 billion. Now we are
at $8 billion. So, in military construction, we have taken
savings and took it very seriously.
However, there is still, I think, some insufficient
funding. We need some more funding in some areas. We still are
trying to do better in our quality of life for our soldiers and
our airmen--we have some shortfalls in that area.
Although the fiscal year 2001 budget attempts to provide
funding for the limited number of barracks, family housing, and
mission modernization projects, it is more a question of
allocating shortages across the Departments of the Army and the
Air Force than it is increasing their money. Also, the great
concern is the loss of the 5 percent contingency fee from
military construction this year for family housing projects. I
am worried about the impact on compromising quality standards,
slowing project execution, and possible deferment of some
projects entirely.
But I look forward to hearing about this. I know that the
folks we have in front of us today have a little imagination
and a little entrepreneurship to them, and we can make it
through this critical time.
Secretary Johnson, I would ask you to keep your statement
short, and I will tell you that your entire statement will be
made part of the record, and we look forward to hearing from
you.
Senator Craig, do you have a statement this morning? And we
will wait on Senator Murray, while she is getting here.
Senator Craig. I would be happy to fill time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Fill time? Well, it is yours to fill, sir.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I say with pride that I serve on this subcommittee with
great interest in the accomplishments that we make in behalf of
our men and women in uniform. I am also frustrated by the very
statements of our chairman, that we are not where we ought to
be, gentlemen, on the spending levels that are necessary. In
fact, I look at where we have come from and I think this
administration has lost the real feeling of where we need to be
with our military and what we need to provide to those men and
women in uniform.
I look at our real property maintenance goal of 3 percent
and find that we are only at 1 percent as it relates to
replacement values. And that is not acceptable. And we are
going to have to find a way to do better. The chairman of the
full committee has just arrived, and I know his commitment to
our military, and he is going to help us get there.
We have already made major steps in the right direction in
the last 2 years, and we will continue to do that. Day-to-day
preventive maintenance does not necessarily provide the kind of
facilities we need or the readiness that we want on behalf of
our military.
In my State of Idaho, the Enhanced Training Range--and I
will be talking to those folks in the blue uniforms in a
moment--is of a critical nature to the whole of our Air Force
and to the Mountain Home Air Force Base. Obviously the 366th
Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base and what it does with the
composite wing is a tremendous contribution to our country. I
will also be discussing with our Air Force the housing
situation at Mountain Home and our failure to keep up with what
we need there.
Let me also say, in behalf of the Army Corps, you are
engaged in a project now on the Snake and Columbia River
systems, where wise and judicious efforts are going to be
critical to the future of the Pacific Northwest and the
management of those two river systems. You are there in a major
way from the standpoint of systems management, dredging, the
transportation on the river, and of course the critical issue
of salmon and the endangered species that are listed on that
river.
There are some who would like to return that river to pre-
European man's existence in the Pacific Northwest--and how
foolish they are. Because their goal is to stop growth and to
cause those of us who like to live in that region and provide
an economy for people who want to live there. So it is very
frustrating to me with some of the efforts I see put forth.
PREPARED STATEMENT
What the Army Corps is doing now is critical as it relates
to a management plan to save our fish and to manage those
rivers in a way that work and will continue to work, not just
for Mother Nature, but also for that other dominant species in
the region now called the human species. And I would hope that,
in the end, we find a compatible way to get that done. And the
Army Corps is going to play a key role in that.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Larry Craig
Mr. Chairman, it is truly a pleasure to serve on the Military
Construction Subcommittee. I am proud of the accomplishments and impact
which we have had on not only the Department of Defense, but also on
the men, women and their families who serve diligently in defending
this great nation of ours. We have worked hard in the past to ensure
funds are provided and available for the crucial projects needed at our
all important military installations, and unfortunately we are required
to work even harder this year to keep funding at even an adequate
level.
As we all know, the military construction budget is to provide
necessary funding for the planning, design, construction, alteration,
and improvement of military facilities world-wide. Over the last couple
of years I get the feeling this has been lost on the Clinton-Gore
Administration. Both Houses of Congress have continually debated with
the current administration about whether military construction funding
and long-term planning are adequate.
The Department of Defense's stated goal for real property
maintenance is three percent, which is below funding used for public
facilities nationwide. In light of this, it is mind boggling to think
that some of the Services are budgeting only one percent of the plant
replacement value. How can we expect to keep our military
infrastructure maintained at a functioning level when our maintenance
budget won't even cover the day-to-day preventative maintenance
expenses?
Because of the lack of adequate budgeting and planning, Congress
has felt the need to intervene and fund programs which we feel are in
the best interest of the services and the country as a whole. We are
entering into the final phase of funding one of these programs, the
Enhanced Training Range, which is of significant importance to the Air
Force and the United States.
Idahoans have proudly supported America's national security
interests through our long running alliance with both the Air Force,
the Navy, and the Idaho National Guard and Reserve.
As you know, the 366th Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base is the
Air Force's only air intervention composite wing which is ready to
fight and intervene anytime, anywhere. These aircrews have been
successfully training in southern Idaho for more than 50 years, and
with the new Enhanced Training Range, they will have the unequaled
ability to train in southern Idaho for another fifty years.
The Acoustic Research Detachment in North Idaho plays the key Naval
role in model testing for our submarines. This installation, at Lake
Pend Oreille, is unique in its location and function. The Detachment's
hydro acoustic testing of advanced submarine stealth technology feeds
into recommendations for engineering designs for new and current fleet
vessels. Although there is no military construction request for Bayview
this year, I would like to point out that some Navy experts claim that
Lake Pend Oreille is the most important body of water for the Navy. I
agree.
At Gowen Field in Boise, the Idaho Guard and Reserve have long
supported ongoing military operations throughout the world. This year,
I will press for projects that are extremely important to Gowen, but
more important, the Guard and Reserve overall. One project would
provide for the construction of a 41,600 square yard asphalt concrete
assault landing strip. It would include facilities to address landing
and takeoff overruns, as well as turn around pads for each end, 10 foot
unpaved shoulders, and airfield lighting, fencing, and access roads.
Without this initiative, the Guard will be forced to continue
flights of long sortie duration, with the associated wear and tear on
aircraft and increased fuel usage. Only the minimum air crew
proficiency for assault landing capability will be maintained, because
of the valuable flying hours depleted and the restricted training
availability of traditional guardsmen. In addition, there is no local
airfield available that provides air traffic control requirements
needed to meet C-130 assault landing training criteria or traffic
prioritization on the optimum landing surface needed for C-130s.
Another project that I encourage the Army Guard to consider for
future years construction is for the Mobilization Readiness Center for
the Army Guard. The Idaho National Guard faces a significant shortage
in readiness space at its facilities at Gowen Field, which resulted
from the DOD-directed reorganization of the 1-183rd Aviation Battalion
and the 1-189th Aviation Medical Detachment. This shortage could impact
readiness and the ability of the Idaho National Guard to effectively
and efficiently prepare for deployment. The Mobilization Readiness
Center modifications and additions are needed to provide space for Army
Guard units currently located in World War II-era buildings or other
facilities that are overcrowded and inadequate for that purpose. I urge
the National Guard Bureau to place this project in the FYDP at the
earliest practicable date.
I am extremely proud of the role that the men and women of in
uniform in Idaho play in ``keeping the peace'' around the globe. I have
to tell you that I recently had the pleasure of visiting these
outstanding men and women at Mountain Home, but I was shocked at the
conditions in which they and their families must live and work. These
brave men and women, who put their lives on the line, day-in and day-
out, need better housing and working conditions.
To rectify the housing situation will cost approximately $110
million over five years. Funding for this plan is not scheduled to
begin until 2003 and continue through 2007. I don't know how the
maintenance personnel will be able to keep this property in livable
condition until this funding becomes available.
I would encourage you to look at your priorities and reconsider
Mountain Home. I was very discouraged and disappointed by the living
conditions during my recent visit. The men and women of the 366th Wing
deserve better, and you have the ability to make a difference.
Once again, I feel that Congress is being held hostage by the
Clinton-Gore Administration. They know that we will not stand for this
atrocity and will increase the funding for military construction, which
the Congress has done to the tune of about $3.5 billion over the last
five years.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murray.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling
this hearing. And I welcome all of our witnesses and look
forward to hearing from all of you.
Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that, frankly, I was
disappointed when I looked over the fiscal year 2001 military
construction budgets of the Army and the Air Force. In the
second year in a row in which the overall defense budget is on
a significant upswing, military construction (MILCON) funding
continues on a downward spiral. The MILCON budgets of both the
Army and the Air Force represent a troubling decrease over last
year's appropriated amount.
As our witnesses have so eloquently stated to this
committee before and no doubt will do so again today,
infrastructure, both mission critical and quality of life, is
an essential element of readiness and a vital tool in
recruitment and retention of our troops. Simply put, you cannot
continue to starve MILCON without sapping the strength of the
rest of our Nation's military operations.
I know that our witnesses understand the need for safe,
modern and well-equipped working areas, for secure and
comfortable family housing, for decent barracks and community
assets such as child care centers and physical fitness centers.
I know that they are doing the best they can in difficult
circumstances. But I believe that we have to do more. I believe
we can do more. And I believe we can do it without sacrificing
readiness.
To the contrary, we are more likely to affect readiness if
we do not address the military's basic infrastructure needs.
You cannot continue to field the finest military forces in the
world if you do not have adequate training centers or adequate
facilities in which to maintain their equipment. And you cannot
expect our men and women in uniform to willingly deploy to hot
spots throughout the world on short notice if they must leave
their families behind in substandard housing with limited
community support services.
Mr. Chairman, you deserve a tremendous amount of credit for
your efforts to secure adequate levels of military construction
funding for our services, and particularly for the emphasis
that you have continually placed on quality-of-life projects
which are so important to men and women in uniform. I look
forward, Mr. Chairman, to working with you again this year to
fashion a product that will fit the growing needs of the
services in the crucial areas of military construction. Thank
you.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Murray. I have not done
as good a job as you have given me credit for, I will guarantee
you that. We need some more. But we have the chairman of the
full committee and chairman of the Defense Subcommittee here
this morning. Maybe we can make our appeal now.
Senator Murray. Good.
Senator Burns. I know that is just exactly what he wanted
to hear.
Senator Stevens, welcome this morning. You have a
statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We have other
subcommittee meetings, so I will not stay long. But I do want
to say you should not pick on these guys. They are not the ones
that made the cuts that offend me, particularly in the area of
contingencies, in the area of catching up with the backlog in
maintenance and in making the kind of response we should have
made to the chiefs' lists in all four services. The chiefs'
lists were basically ignored when it came down to the fine
tuning, I think we have to do something about that.
So I would urge you to listen to the witnesses about what,
and ask the questions to make sure we understand what were
their priorities. We do believe we will have a little bit more
money available--I think we will--than the Office of the
Secretary of Defense thought they would have available. So I
want to make sure it goes to the places where it is needed,
particularly to prevent the obsolescence of our basic systems
that support the military.
I think it is a pretty good bill from the point of view of
quality of life. We will have to do a little bit more about
housing. I am going to be interested to see what you all do
with the request that you are going to present today. And I
urge you all to tell us what you need and not what this budget
tells us you need.
Senator Burns. Very well.
Secretary Johnson, thank you.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, let me ask unanimous consent
my full statement be a part of the record.
Senator Burns. It will be made a part of the record.
Thank you for coming this morning. We are starting out a
little earlier in your day than normal I would imagine. But you
know us farmers, we like to get done before noon, and then we
like to sleep in the afternoon.
Mr. Johnson, thank you for coming this morning.
STATEMENT OF PAUL W. JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
it is a pleasure to appear before you to discuss the Army's
military construction request for fiscal year 2001. With me
today are Major General Van Antwerp, the Assistant Chief of
Staff for Installation Management; Major General Hunter, Deputy
Commanding General of Military Programs for the Army Corps of
Engineers; Brigadier General Diamond, Deputy Chief, Army
Reserve; and Brigadier General Squier, Deputy Director of the
Army National Guard.
Our combined written statement, as you indicated, I would
like for that to be put in the record.
Senator Burns. Your full statement will be made part of the
record.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Before we answer any of your specific questions regarding
the budget submission, I would like to highlight a few of our
key initiatives in the Army's Active and Reserve components.
Forty-seven percent of our budget, or $427 million, is
dedicated to providing facilities that help the well-being of
our soldiers, their families and civilians. This includes our
top military construction priority to get soldiers out of
inadequate barracks and to provide new and upgraded barracks to
over 136,000 soldiers.
The fiscal year 2001 Military Construction Army (MCA)
budget request of $367 million for barracks will provide modern
housing for over 3,100 soldiers worldwide. Our strategic
mobility program is on track for completion in the year 2003.
We realize that we will be examining our entire strategic
mobility requirement as part of transforming the Army to a more
strategically responsive force. But, based on current plans,
our MCA program has been responsive to the requirements of the
Army.
The Army's family housing program contains a total of $154
million. Over $100 million of this is construction of new,
replacement housing or revitalization of current housing within
the United States, and $54 million to improve our housing
overseas. Together with our housing privatization initiative
and Secretary Cohen's initiative to eliminate service members'
out-of-pocket costs for off-base housing in the United States,
this MILCON funding will help improve the living conditions of
our married soldiers.
The Army National Guard fiscal year 2001 MILCON budget
request focuses on training, site modernization, readiness
centers, and Army National Guard division redesign study (ADRS)
projects. The Army National Guard's participation in the Army
division redesign study will better provide needed forces to
the commanders in chief. ADRS will convert some National Guard
combat force to combat service support forces that are needed
by the Army to implement the National Military Strategy. For
the Army Reserve, the budget provides the essential military
construction resources for Army Reserve centers, their backbone
for training, readiness and mobilization.
Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 2001 budget permits us to
execute the Army's military construction programs. Our long-
term facilities strategy can be accomplished only through
balanced funding, reduction of excess capacity, and improvement
in management. We plan to work closely with you to streamline,
consolidate and establish partnerships that generate resources
for infrastructure improvement and continuance of service.
PREPARED STATEMENT
With the support of this committee and approval of our
budget, we will be better able to support the Army and soldiers
and their families who serve our Nation. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. We are now ready to respond to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul W. Johnson
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 2001. 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.
PART I--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY FAMILY HOUSING, HOMEOWNERS
ASSISTANCE FUND, DEFENSE
I am pleased to present the Active Army's portion of the Military
Construction budget request for fiscal year 2001. This budget provides
construction and family housing resources essential to support your
Army's role in our National Military Strategy. It is also the first
budget that supports the Army's new Vision and transformation strategy.
The program presented herein requests fiscal year 2001
appropriations of $897,938,000 for Military Construction, Army (MCA),
and $1,140,381,000 for Army Family Housing (AFH). The companion request
for authorization of appropriations is $897,938,000 for MCA and
$1,140,381,000 for AFH. There is no request this year for the
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense.
For the past 224 years, the Army has had a contract with the
American people to fight and win the Nation's wars. We continue to
fulfill this contract in executing the National Security Strategy and
the National Military Strategy across the full spectrum of military
operations. Since 1989, we have deployed forces for contingency
operations, on average, once every 14 weeks. The Army has successfully
answered the Nation's call 35 times in the last 10 years.
To prepare for an uncertain future, the Army announced a new Vision
to forge a more strategically responsive, yet dominant, force for the
21st Century. The new force will be more mobile and sustainable, and
still have the capability to respond to the full spectrum of
operations. It also continues a rigorous training program, full
integration of the Active and Reserve Components, comprehensive
initiatives to protect the force, and provides sufficient installations
from which to project our forces. Implementation of our Vision is
currently underway. Although we do not know the precise effects on Army
installations and facilities, we are working closely with the
Transformation Task Force to ensure installation needs are identified
and addressed.
The Army must sustain a force of high quality, well-trained people;
acquire and maintain the right mix of weapons and equipment; and
maintain effective infrastructure and power projection platforms to
generate the capabilities necessary for meeting the warfighting
requirements and engagement priorities of the commanders-in-chief
(CINCs) of the combatant commands.
The new Vision charts the course for the Army to transform itself
into a force that has these desired characteristics and can sustain
dominance at any point on the spectrum of operations. Throughout all
phases of the transformation, the Army will pursue changing our
concepts and doctrine as well as the institutional base. Our budget
request fully supports the missions of the transformed Army. We are
working in tandem with the transformation efforts to ensure our
installations and facilities meet the needs of our warfighting
soldiers. Keeping the changes in our installations and facilities
synchronized with the transformation of the force will ensure the Army
retains the capability to meet its national security mission throughout
the transformation process.
Now, I would like to discuss the Army's installations and
facilities strategy for fiscal year 2001 and beyond and how it supports
our new Vision. As the Army transforms, we must also take similar giant
strides to ensure that Army installations are not left behind. As we
look ahead, we intend to help the Army achieve its new vision by
implementing a complementary vision for our installations: By the year
2020, Army posts will more fully support and satisfy our warfighting
needs, while providing soldiers and their families with a quality of
life that equals that of their peers in civilian communities. The Army
will soon publish a white paper, Managing Army Posts: Tenets for the
Twenty-First Century, which will provide the framework and principles
for achieving this new vision for Army installations.
We estimate that the bill to upgrade, replace and build facilities
to currently acceptable levels is simply impossible to reach without
the ability to unlock the value in our installation assets and
operations. Our current facilities strategy has us on the right path
but, by itself, will not take us to our new vision.
FACILITIES STRATEGY
The Army's current facilities strategy is threefold. First, we must
focus our investments to gain the most benefit from limited resources.
We must identify required facilities, infrastructure and support
services necessary for the desired level of readiness. We must make a
dedicated effort to stop further deterioration of existing required
facilities and continue to focus our limited modernization dollars on
mission critical and well being projects. Currently our focus is on
barracks modernization and strategic mobility projects. As the Army
transforms, the facilities strategy will adapt to support transforming
Army requirements while continuing to support legacy Army requirements.
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, 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 us in assessing
the condition of our facilities essential to the installation's mission
and the well being of our personnel.
We continue to eliminate 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. This year we continue our policy of demolishing one square foot
for every square foot constructed. We are also making progress reducing
our leasing costs. Between fiscal years 1998-2001, we project an annual
savings in leasing costs of $26,600,000. 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. Although these savings are substantial, we need to achieve even
more. Therefore, the Army supports additional rounds of BRAC in fiscal
years 2003 and 2005.
We are pursuing innovative ways to modernize our infrastructure and
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 in CONUS by 2003,
where it is economically feasible, except those needed for unique
security reasons. Another initiative, the Value Improvement Program, is
being launched this year to improve the value the Army receives from
its facilities construction and operations dollars. We have also
established a pilot program to test privatization authorities for
military family housing in an effort to provide better housing for
soldiers and their families. We continue to seek partnering
opportunities with civilian communities around our installations to
provide some facilities as a viable alternative to Army ownership
facilities.
Executive Order 13123, ``Greening The Government Through Efficient
Energy Management,'' sets higher goals for reducing energy consumption.
We are depending on the use of Energy Savings Performance Contracts
(ESPC), and other forms of alternative financing, to implement this
executive order, to help reduce energy consumption, reduce pollutants,
and improve the well being of our personnel at our installations. We
awarded the largest ever ESPC contract within the Federal government
for implementing a minimum of $67 million in energy saving projects for
five installations in the Military District of Washington. We are
aggressively pursuing all opportunities to purchase electrical power
generated from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal. We
have also installed hundreds of solar lighting systems that use no
energy in our facilities and are expanding this further.
Next, I will discuss the highlights of the budget.
CONTINGENCIES
Funding for contingencies was eliminated for all military
construction and family housing projects, based on the concern that
contingency funding was being used to support upgrades to projects.
Although the Army's past construction program execution experience has
indicated that contingency funding is required for mandatory
construction changes after contract award, the Army will execute the
program by implementing more stringent program management controls. The
real impact will not be known until the year of execution.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY (MCA)
We are focusing on four major categories of projects: mission
facilities; well being; support programs; and chemical
demilitarization. I will explain each area in turn.
MISSION FACILITIES
In fiscal year 2001, there are six mission facility projects for
the Army's Strategic Mobility Program. These improvements facilitate
movement of personnel and equipment from CONUS bases for both the
Active and Reserve components to meet Army and Defense timelines for
mobilization operations.
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 appropriations, authorization and authorization of
appropriations of $67,300,000. The fiscal year 2001 projects will
complete 79 percent of the Strategic Mobility program that is scheduled
for completion in fiscal year 2003.
Our fiscal year 2001 request includes six projects. We are
improving our rail deployment capability by improving the railyard
infrastructure at Fort Bliss and a railroad equipment maintenance
facility at Sunny Point Military Ocean Terminal. Our request for Phase
3 of the railhead at Fort Hood will complete this project begun in
fiscal year 1999.
We are continuing to improve our air deployment by constructing an
ammunition holding area adjacent to the airfield at Fort Bragg and a
fixed wing aircraft parking apron at Fort Benning. To improve our
ammunition outloading and shipping capability, we have included a
project for an ammunition container complex at Red River Army Depot.
WELL BEING PROJECTS
The well being of our soldiers, their families and civilians has a
significant impact on readiness. Therefore, almost half, 47 percent, of
our budget is dedicated to providing these types of facilities. Our
priority is to get soldiers out of gang latrine type barracks and to
provide new or upgraded barracks to house 136,000 single soldiers.
Additionally, we are requesting other facilities that will improve not
only the well being of our soldiers but also the readiness of the Army.
We are requesting appropriations and authorization of appropriations of
$426,500,000, with an authorization of $427,700,000 for well being
projects this year.
Whole Barracks Renewal Initiative.--Modernization of barracks for
permanent party soldiers continues to be the Army's number one
facilities priority for military construction. It provides single
soldiers with a quality living environment that more nearly
approximates conditions off the installation, or enjoyed by our married
soldiers. New or renovated barracks include increased personal privacy
and larger rooms, closets, upgraded day rooms, new furnishings,
adequate parking, and landscaping, in addition to administrative
offices, which are separated from the barracks.
In fiscal year 2001, we are planning 17 projects. This includes 5
projects in Europe and 2 projects in Korea. Our budget completes 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 also completing the Fort Benning and Fort Riley
barracks that were authorized and incrementally funded in fiscal year
2000. Our budget includes the second increments of barracks complexes
at Fort Bragg and Schofield Barracks that were authorized in fiscal
year 2000. Fort Bragg's large soldier population and poor barracks
conditions require sustained high investment to provide quality housing
and meet the fiscal year 2008 buyout. Thus, we are requesting full
authorization and Phase 1 funding to start two additional barracks
complexes at Fort Bragg. With full authorization of these projects, we
plan to award each complex, subject to subsequent appropriations, as a
single contract to gain cost efficiencies, expedite construction, and
provide uniformity in building systems.
With the approval of the fiscal year 2001 program, as requested,
barracks at the new standard will be funded for 70 percent of our
permanent party soldiers. Our plan is to invest between fiscal years
2002 and 2008 an additional $4.4 billion in MCA and host nation funds,
supplemented by $0.6 billion in Real Property Maintenance (RPM) to fix
barracks worldwide to meet our goal of providing improved living
conditions to our single soldiers. Between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal
year 2000, we invested $3.5 billion from all sources to improve the
well being of our single soldiers. While we are making considerable
progress on installations in the United States, we will need to
significantly increase funding for Germany and Korea in future
programs. Because a higher proportion of soldiers assigned overseas
require barracks space than those stationed in the United States, 42
percent of our total barracks requirement is to house soldiers assigned
to Europe and Korea. For the past several years the overseas regions
have been funded at lower levels than United States installations;
therefore, approximately half of the remaining modernization effort is
required in these areas.
This substantial effort with significant funding in later years
keeps our barracks program on track to build new or renovate all
barracks to the 1+1 or equivalent construction standard worldwide by
2008. Barracks conditions in Korea are considered the worst in the Army
because we are forced to assign soldiers to Quonsets, H-relocatables or
force them to live off-post. Thus, Korea is currently using a modified
2+2 standard which incorporates the same amenities but expedites
getting soldiers into quality facilities.
Other well being projects.--To improve the barracks for our new
Army recruits, we are requesting appropriations and authorization of
appropriations of $38,600,000, along with full authorization of
$61,200,000, for the first phase of a basic trainee complex at Fort
Leonard Wood. In addition, we are requesting a project to improve the
housing for unaccompanied personnel at Kwajalein Atoll.
Our budget also includes construction of a new child development
center in Kaiserslautern to replace the failing facility supporting the
Landstuhl Hospital. We are requesting appropriations, authorization and
authorization of appropriations of $3,400,000 for this project.
SUPPORT PROGRAMS
This category of construction projects provides vital support to
installations and helps improve their readiness capabilities. In our
budget, we have requested 12 projects with appropriations and
authorization of appropriations of $119,032,000, and with an
authorization request of $81,180,000.
Our budget completes the Digital Multi-purpose Training Range at
Fort Knox that will improve training of both our active forces as well
as the reserve components. This project was authorized by Congress in
fiscal year 1999. We are continuing our range modernization program by
requesting appropriations and authorization of appropriations for Phase
1 of the Digital Multi-purpose Training Range at Fort Hood for
$16,000,000, along with the request for full authorization of
$26,000,000.
Phase 2a 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
$13,600,000 for this phase. The entire project was authorized in fiscal
year 1999.
The budget includes three projects to meet the Army's goal to get
out of leased space. The construction of two military entrance
processing stations at the Defense Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio, and
at the Defense Distribution Center, Pennsylvania, and of the Space and
Missile Defense Command Building at Redstone Arsenal will permit us to
vacate costly leased facilities.
With Phase 2 of the Consolidated Soldier Support Center at Fort
Drum, we are completing a project that was authorized and begun in
fiscal year 2000. The Chemical Defense Qualification Facility at Pine
Bluff Arsenal was also authorized in fiscal year 2000 and we are
requesting funding for construction in this budget.
Additional projects in the budget include a Central Vehicle Wash
Facility at Fort Richardson, a Field Operations Facility at Fort
Huachuca, an Academic Research Facility at Carlisle Barracks, and a
classified project.
AMMUNITION DEMILITARIZATION
The Ammunition Demilitarization (Chemical Weapons Demilitarization)
Program is designed to destroy the U.S. inventory of lethal chemical
agents, munitions, and related (non-stock-piled) 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 2000 Chemical Demilitarization construction program to the
Department of Defense, the overall responsibility for the program
remains with the Army and we have included it in this year's Army
budget.
We are requesting appropriations, authorization and authorization
of appropriations of $3,100,000 to construct a Munitions Assessment/
Processing System Facility to provide a safe, controlled environment
for the treatment and disposal of unexploded ordnance. An
appropriations and authorization of appropriations request for
$172,300,000 is included in the Army's fiscal year 2001 budget to
continue the Chemical Demilitarization projects previously authorized.
An advance appropriation of $304,540,000 is requested to complete these
projects. Table 1 summarizes our request:
Table 1
[Fiscal Year 2001]
Installation/Type Amount
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD/Ammun Demil Facility........ $45,700,000
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD/Munitions Assess System
Facility............................................ 3,100,000
Blue Grass Army Depot, KY/Ammun Demil Facility.......... 8,500,000
Newport Army Depot, IN/Ammun Demil Facility............. 54,400,000
Pine Bluff Army Depot, AR/Ammun Demil Facility.......... 43,600,000
Pueblo Army Depot, CO/Ammun Demil Facility.............. 10,700,000
Umatilla Army Depot, OR Ammun Demil Facility............ 9,400,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 175,400,000
The destruction of the U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons by the
2007 deadline in the Chemical Weapons Convention is a major priority of
the Army, DOD and the Administration. The MILCON funding for the
chemical weapons destruction facilities is essential to achieving that
goal.
PLANNING AND DESIGN
The fiscal year 2001 MCA budget includes $72,106,000 for planning
and design. This request is based on the size of the two succeeding
fiscal years' military construction programs. The size of the fiscal
year 2001 request is, therefore, a function of the construction
programs for two fiscal years. The requested amount will be used to
complete design on fiscal year 2002 projects and initiate design of
fiscal year 2003 projects.
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
2001 budget request for $22,600,000 will provide oversight for
approximately $1 billion of construction in Japan, $50 million in Korea
and $50 million in Europe. The budget includes $3,100,000, which is
dedicated to the oversight of facilities associated with the Government
of Japan funded initiative to consolidate and relocate United States
Forces on Okinawa.
Let me show you the analysis of our fiscal year 2001 MCA request.
BUDGET REQUEST ANALYSIS
Summary: The fiscal year 2001 MCA budget includes a request for
appropriations of $897,938,000 and companion request for authorization
of appropriations of $897,938,000.
Authorization Request.--The request for authorization is
$688,988,000. The authorization request is adjusted for those projects
previously authorized in fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000. These
projects include Phase 2 of the West Point Cadet Physical Development
Center, Phase 3 of the Fort Knox Digital Multi-purpose Training Range,
and the remainder of the Whole Barracks Renewal Complex at Fort
Campbell, Fort Benning, Fort Riley, Fort Stewart, and the second
increment at Fort Bragg and Schofield Barracks. Additionally, it is
modified to provide full authorization of $296,800,000 for the Fort
Leonard Wood Basic Training Complex, two new barracks complexes at Fort
Bragg, and the Multi-purpose Digital Training Range at Fort Hood. Only
$126,200,000 in appropriations is required for the first phases of
these projects.
The fiscal year 2001 request for appropriations and authorization
for fiscal year 2001, by investment focus, is shown in Table 2:
TABLE 2.--INVESTMENT FOCUS--FISCAL YEAR 2001
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Category Authorization Appropriations Appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Being/Barracks............................................. $427,700 $426,500 47.5
Mission/Strategic Mobility...................................... 67,300 67,300 7.5
Support......................................................... 81,182 119,032 13.3
Planning & Design/Minor Construction............................ 109,706 109,706 12.2
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Army MILCON........................................ 685,888 722,538 80.5
-----------------------------------------------
Chemical Demilitarization....................................... 3,100 175,400 19.5
-----------------------------------------------
Total Program............................................... 688,988 897,938 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 shows the fiscal year 2001 distribution of the
appropriations request among the Army's major commands:
TABLE 3.--COMMAND SUMMARY--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY--FISCAL YEAR 2001
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Command Appropriations Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inside the United States:
Forces Command...................... $306,100 34.1
Training & Doctrine Command......... 57,550 6.4
Army Materiel Command............... 191,700 21.3
Military Entrance Processing Command 5,532 0.6
Military Traffic Management Command. 2,300 0.3
United States Military Academy...... 13,600 1.5
Intelligence and Security Command... 1,250 0.1
Space & Missile Defense Command..... 23,400 2.6
United States Army, Pacific......... 93,200 10.4
Classified Project.................. 11,500 1.3
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 706,132 78.6
===============================
Outside the United States:
Space & Missile Defense Command..... 18,000 2.0
Eighth, United States Army.......... 33,700 3.8
United States Army, Europe.......... 30,400 3.4
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 82,100 9.2
-------------------------------
Total Major Construction.......... 788,2328 7.8
===============================
Worldwide:
Planning and Design................. 94,706 10.5
Minor Construction.................. 15,000 1.7
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 109,706 12.2
===============================
Total Appropriations Requested.... 897,938 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I will explain our Army Family Housing request.
ARMY FAMILY HOUSING
No single program 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. Adequate housing continues to be the number one
soldier concern when we ask them about their well being. Maintaining or
finding adequate, quality housing for our soldiers and families is one
of the Army's continuing challenges. The Secretary of Defense has
announced an initiative to eliminate service members' out-of-pocket
costs for off-base housing in the United States. This action will
reduce service members' costs for housing from approximately 19 percent
in 2000 to 15 percent in 2001, with continued reductions each year
thereafter, eliminating those out-of-pocket costs entirely by 2005.
DOD has set a goal to eliminate inadequate family housing by 2010.
Currently, 78 percent of our housing is inadequate--needing either
replacement, major renovation or repair. The Army's unfunded bill to
meet the DOD goal is $4.9 billion.
The Army plans to utilize privatization authorities granted in the
1996 MHPI to help meet the DOD goal. Fort Carson, Colorado, is the
Army's first privatization project. The contract was awarded in
September 1999, and the developer assumed operational control of the
existing housing in November 1999. Under this contract, the developer
will renovate all existing base housing and construct 840 additional
units within a five year period. Soldiers' rent will be capped at their
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).
Three pilot projects are being developed under the Residential
Communities Initiative (RCI) and solicited using a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) process. The pilot sites are Fort Hood, Texas;
Fort Lewis, Washington; and Fort Meade, Maryland. The RFQ process is a
concept well proven in industry and government. It allows the
Government to select a private housing and community developer based on
each firm's qualifications and experience; to jointly develop a
Community Development and Management Plan; and to negotiate an
agreement with the developer to implement that plan. This process is
faster, less costly for developers to compete, and provides more
flexibility to develop projects that better meet the needs of all
concerned parties. Throughout the RFQ process, the emphasis is on
partnering with the private entity to develop residential communities
in consultation with all ``stakeholders'' including the Congress.
Fort Hood is the first RCI project being solicited under the RFQ
process and an award is expected early this year. The Fort Lewis RFQ
was issued in December 1999, and we expect to issue the Fort Meade RFQ
in April 2000.
In summary, to meet DOD's goal in the 50 states, the Army plans to
use a combination of traditional MILCON, BAH increases, and
privatization initiatives. To this end, the Army supports extending the
MHPI legislation beyond the February 2001 expiration. In Europe and
Korea, we intend to reach the goal by funding AFH programs and
revitalizing inadequate housing through traditional means and by
returning unneeded units to host nations.
Our fiscal year 2001 request for appropriations, authorization, and
authorization of appropriations is $1,140,381,000. Table 4 summarizes
each of the categories of the Army Family Housing program.
TABLE 4.--ARMY FAMILY HOUSING--FISCAL YEAR 2001
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization Appropriations
Facility Category ---------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Percentage Amount Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Construction................................ $91,974 8 $91,974 8
Post Acquisition Construction................... 63,590 6 63,590 6
Planning and Design............................. 6,542 1 6,542 1
Operations...................................... 180,370 16 180,370 16
Utilities....................................... 198,101 17
Planning and Design............................. 6,542 <1 6,542 <1
Operations...................................... 180,370 16 180,370 16
Utilities....................................... 198,101 17 198,101 17
Maintenance..................................... 397,792 35 397,792 35
Leasing......................................... 202,011 18 202,011 18
Debt............................................ 1 <1 1 <1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 1,140,381 .............. 1,140,381 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
The fiscal year 2001 request continues the Whole Neighborhood
Revitalization (WNR) initiative approved by Congress in fiscal year
1992 and supported consistently since that time. This successful
approach addresses the entire living environment of the military
family. The projects are based on life-cycle economic analyses and will
provide units that meet adequacy standards.
New construction.--The fiscal year 2001 new construction program
provides WNR projects that replace 462 units at five locations.
Replacement construction provides adequate facilities where there is a
continuing requirement for the housing and it is not economical to
renovate. Since existing housing will be demolished, there is no
increase to our inventory. New construction projects are requested at 2
locations: Fort Jackson (1 unit), where an additional GFOQ is required
to support mission requirements; and at Camp Humphreys, Korea, (60
units), where adequate off post family housing is not available and no
on post family housing exists. These units serve command sponsored
personnel living in substandard, off post quarters and those personnel
who are unaccompanied due to a lack of adequate family housing on or
off post. All of these projects are supported by housing surveys which
show that adequate and affordable units are not available in the local
community.
Post acquisition construction.--The Post Acquisition Construction
Program is an integral part of our housing revitalization program. In
fiscal year 2001, we are requesting funds for improvements to 770 units
at 4 locations in the United States, 4 locations in Europe, and 1 GFOQ
in Korea. 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 2001 request. The requested
amount of $978,275,000 for fiscal year 2001 is approximately 86 percent
of the total family housing budget. This budget provides for the Army's
annual expenditures for operations, municipal-type services,
furnishings, maintenance and repair, and utilities. The family housing
utilities' request reflects our success in reducing energy consumption.
LEASING
The leasing program provides another way of adequately housing our
military families. We are requesting $202,011,000 in fiscal year 2001
to fund existing Section 2835 project requirements, temporary domestic
leases in the United States, and approximately 10,000 units overseas.
As part of its role as executive agent for SOUTHCOM, the Army submitted
a legislative proposal to raise the congressional cap for 8 leased
family housing units in Miami from $280,000 to $400,000, due to rising
costs.
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: (1) Maintenance and
Repair of Real Property and (2) 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. The Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) RPM
funding is $1,429,000,000 in fiscal year 2001.
Within the RPM program, there are two areas to highlight: (1) our
Barracks Upgrade Program (BUP) and (2) the Long Range Utilities
Strategy. At the completion of the fiscal year 2001 program, as
requested, we will have funded adequate housing to meet or approximate
the DOD 1+1 barracks standard for 70 percent of our soldiers. The
fiscal year 2002-2008 Military Construction program will provide
barracks for another 21 percent of eligible soldiers. We will use RPM
resources to renovate barracks to an approximate DOD 1+1 standard for
the remaining 9 percent of barracks residents. In fiscal year 2000,
Congress provided Army an additional $77 million in Quality of Life
Enhancements, Defense (QOLE,D) funding for repair of facilities key to
improving the well being of our soldiers. We allocated these funds to
bring more of our gang latrine barracks and VOLAR era barracks in the
United States to an approximate 1+1 standard. The Army is committing an
average of about $150 million per year in RPM to continue the efforts
to upgrade our single soldier's well being. The Barracks Upgrade
Program, when combined with the Military Construction, Army Whole
Barracks Renewal program, has reduced significantly the time required
to improve the living conditions of our single soldiers. 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. Privatization or outsourcing of
utilities is the first part of our strategy. All Army-owned electrical,
natural gas, water, and wastewater systems are being evaluated to
determine the feasibility of privatization. When privatization appears
economical, we use competitive contracting procedures as much as
possible. We have successfully privatized several utility systems on
Army installations. The electrical distribution system on Fort Benning,
Georgia, was privatized and transferred to a traditional electrical
utility provider. The water and wastewater systems at Aberdeen Proving
Ground were privatized and transferred to a municipal utility provider.
Of the 320 Army systems available for privatization, 11 have been
awarded, 34 have been exempt, and the remaining are in the study or
procurement phase. The second part of the strategy is the utilities
modernization program. We are upgrading utility systems that are not
viable candidates to be privatized, such as central heating plants and
distribution systems. We have executed approximately $105,000,000 in
utility modernization projects in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 and in
future years we plan to accomplish $180,000,000 in additional projects.
Together, privatizing and modernizing utility systems will provide
reliable and safe systems.
While we are making progress in upgrading barracks and improving
utility services, the basic maintenance and repair of Army facilities
is funded at only 69 percent of the OMA requirement in fiscal year
2001. At the current funding levels, Army commanders will only be able
to fix what breaks. The Installation Status Report shows Army
facilities are rated C-3 (not fully mission capable) due to years of
under-funding. At the end of fiscal year 1999, 25 percent of the Army's
facilities were ``red''--unsatisfactory; 46 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 2001,
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 11
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 2001 budget 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 13,000
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 well being 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 2001 request is for appropriations of
$2,038,319,000 for Military Construction, Army and Army Family Housing.
Also requested is an advance appropriation of $304,540,000. The
companion request for authorization is $1,829,369,000 and authorization
of appropriations of $2,038,319,000. Further, the program continues to
test the housing privatization program in the United States, while
continuing a family housing construction program for our worst
locations in the United States, as well as in Europe and Korea. 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 2001.
The program presented requests fiscal year 2001 appropriations,
authorization, and authorization of appropriations of $59,130,000 for
military construction, Army National Guard.
The Army National Guard is America's community based, dual-use
reserve force. They have missions across the spectrum of contingencies,
and are 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 357,000 quality soldiers
in over 2,500 communities nationwide.
Great reliance has been placed on this community based component of
America's Army. The Army National Guard has been fully engaged in joint
operational support, host nation support, military-to-military contact
with emerging democracies, and preventive deterrence to hedge against
aggression. During the course of the year, 1,900 Army National Guard
(ARNG) soldiers supported efforts under the auspices of Operation JOINT
FORGE (Bosnia), Operation JOINT GUARDIAN (Kosovo) and Operation
SOUTHERN WATCH (Kuwait/Saudi Arabia). 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. Local
governments in 44 States requested emergency support through their
State Governments a total of 267 times in fiscal year 1999. The Army
National Guard provided over 281,000 soldier man-days in response to
these requirements to meet the critical support needs in local
communities.
FACILITIES STRATEGY
The goal of the Army National Guard is to provide state-of-the-art,
environmentally sound, community based power projection platforms that
integrate all functions required to sustain and enhance unit readiness
and community support. Our objective is to maximize the number of units
that are manned, trained, equipped, resourced and ready for Federal as
well as State and/or domestic missions.
In order to improve on the Federal side, the Active Component (AC)
and Army National Guard (ARNG) are in the process of forming two AC/
ARNG Integrated Divisions, Division Teaming developments and the AC/
ARNG command exchange initiative. In addition, the ARNG is
participating in an Army Division Redesign Study (ADRS) to better
provide needed forces to the commanders-in-chief (CINCs). ADRS will
convert ARNG combat force structure to combat support/combat service
support forces that are needed by the Army to implement the National
Military Strategy. With this change of mission, the ARNG will have to
alter many of our facilities to be able to meet the needs of our new
charge.
As an Army partner, one of the Army National Guard's strategies is
to follow a rigorous and disciplined process to establish priorities
for military construction requirements using Army standards. One such
tool is the real property development plan (RPDP). RPDP is being
adopted by an additional 12 States in fiscal year 2000 bringing the
total to 42. This planning tool is providing the States with a decision
making guide for long-range acquisition, utilization, and development
of real property. By 2001, all 54 States and Territories will have
started their Development Plans.
The Army National Guard needs to ensure that it continues to
provide the forces needed to meet the needs of the community, the Army,
and the Nation. One way to support this necessity is to possess quality
facilities. To reach this objective, we are designing, operating and
maintaining our facilities using private sector business practices,
21st Century technologies, and commercial off-the-shelf facilities
software.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (MCNG)
Within our military construction request, we focus on five
investment areas: training site modernization, readiness centers, Army
National Guard Division Redesign Study (ADRS) projects, minor
construction, and planning and design. These projects are mission
focused and are centered on the well being of our soldiers.
MISSION FACILITIES
In fiscal year 2001, there are 28 mission facility projects. The
amount of $52,630,000 will be used to construct these facilities.
Essential mission facilities include several initiatives such as
maintenance support shops, readiness centers and a training site
complex.
Training Site Modernization.--Fiscal year 2001 continues the
process of adapting existing State operated training sites to training
strategies for the 21st Century. We have included a Regional Training
Institute at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to our training site
modernization program. This complex will replace several World War II
barracks that are now used. The Training Institute will include a
Soldier Development Center, a Long Distance Learning Center, and a
Synthetic Theater of War Range Training Facility, and will serve as the
headquarters of the Combat Arms Brigade of the Total Army School System
(TASS) Region C.
Readiness Centers.--We have included in our fiscal year 2001 budget
request five readiness centers: Mankato, Minnesota; Hancock Field, New
York; Baker City, Oregon; and Bremerton and Yakima, Washington.
Mankato, Hancock Field, Baker City and Bremerton readiness centers will
replace facilities built from 1913 to 1954. The 287 person facility at
Yakima will replace a 180 person tank armed forces reserve center.
Maintenance Support Shops.--As a part of the ADRS initiative, we
have included 22 organization maintenance shops for addition/
alteration. Sites in California, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Montana,
and Nebraska have been selected to begin the conversion process. These
projects are essential for the units to successfully maintain the
additional heavy equipment they will receive during ADRS phase I.
BUDGET REQUEST ANALYSIS
This MCNG budget request includes a request for appropriations,
authorization and authorization of appropriations of $59,130,000 for
fiscal year 2001.
The fiscal year 2001 request, by investment focus, is shown in
Table 5:
TABLE 5.--INVESTMENT FOCUS--FISCAL YEAR 2001
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Category Authorization Appropriations Appropriations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Support Shops....................................... $22,972 $22,972 38.9
Readiness Centers............................................... 20,922 20,922 35.4
Training Site Facilities........................................ 8,709 8,709 14.7
Minor Construction.............................................. 2,295 2,295 3.9
Planning and Design............................................. 4,232 4,232 7.1
-----------------------------------------------
Total Program............................................... 59,130 59,130 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 shows the fiscal year 2001 distribution of the request
among the 54 States and Territories:
TABLE 6.--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY NATIONAL GUARD--FISCAL YEAR 2001
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Location Project Title Appropriations Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mankato, MN................................... Readiness Center................ $4,681 7.9
Fort Bragg, NC................................ Educational Training Facility... 8,709 14.7
Hancock Field, NY............................. Readiness Center................ 5,376 9.1
Baker City, OR................................ Readiness Center................ 3,122 5.3
Bremerton, WA................................. Readiness Center................ 2,639 4.5
Yakima, WA.................................... Readiness Center................ 5,104 8.6
CA, IN, KS, MI, MT, NE........................ ADRS-Organizational Maintenance 22,972 38.8
Shops add/alt.
Various....................................... Planning and Design............. 4,232 7.2
Various....................................... Minor Construction.............. 2,295 3.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Appropriations Requested............ ................................ 59,130 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 well being.
The operation and maintenance of our physical plant is an issue of
concern. The replacement value of all National Guard facilities is over
$19 billion. Their average age is over 35 years. States take care of
these facilities, using the limited resources in Real Property
Maintenance accounts, as authorized and appropriated by Congress.
They do so, however, in a way appropriate to their unique Federal/
State status. The National Guard Bureau does not own, operate or
maintain these facilities. The States 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 2001 request for appropriations, authorization, and
authorization of appropriations is $59,130,000.
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 thank you for your continued 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 2001. 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 operate in a resource constrained environment. Like all of
America's Army Reserve programs, the military construction will focus
on Resources to Readiness.
The program presented requests $81,713,000 for appropriations,
authorization, and authorization of appropriations for fiscal year
2001.
The Army Reserve, which is on duty in 65 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 68 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, including 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 any time to any
place to achieve victory. Army Reserve units and soldiers will continue
to respond to national security needs and domestic missions that face
our nation. 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 overseas 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 well being for our
personnel; preserve and enhance the Army's image across America; and
conserve and protect the facilities resources for which we are
responsible. Our priorities are: (1) provide critical mission needs of
Force Support Package units; (2) address the worst cases of facilities
deterioration and overcrowding; (3) pursue modernization of the total
facilities inventory; and (4) carefully manage Reserve operated
installations. Our strategy for managing the Army Reserve
infrastructure in a resource constrained environment rests on four
fundamentals: eliminate leases when economical; dispose of excess
facilities; consolidate units into the best available facilities; and
use the new Modular Design System (MDS) to achieve long term savings in
construction and design costs.
Significant benefits have been realized from Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC). The Army Reserve acquired facilities from all Services
that offset military construction requirements. The facilities acquired
through BRAC provided a military construction cost avoidance of
$123,300,000. 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 $6,070,000.
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.
Well being.--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 well
being 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 2001 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 its six installations, all of them former Active
Component installations. These installations serve as high quality,
regional training sites for forces of both the Reserve and Active
Components of the Army, as well as the other Services; provide sites
for specialized training; and offer a variety of supporting facilities.
To fulfill this important mission, we must be able to fund projects
that support critical training, mobilization, and quality of life
requirements at the installations. The Army Reserve continues to
support the Army's strategic mobility platforms. Those projects
directly support 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 2001 Military Construction, Army Reserve (MCAR)
budget request for appropriations, authorization, and authorization of
appropriations is $81,713,000. It 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. Table 7 summarizes each of
the categories of the Military Construction, Army Reserve program.
TABLE 7.--INVESTMENT FOCUS--FISCAL YEAR 2001
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Category Authorization Appropriations Appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Construction.............................................. $73,396 $73,396 89.9
Unspecified Minor Const......................................... 1,917 1,917 2.3
Planning and Design............................................. 6,400 6,400 7.8
-----------------------------------------------
Total Program............................................... 81,713 81,713 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Historically, the budget has provided RPM resources to only fund the
most critical maintenance and repair needs. The fiscal year 2001 budget
includes $114,704,000 for RPM which funds 74 percent of Army Reserve
real property maintenance requirements. We solicit your support of real
property maintenance as an essential adjunct of construction.
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. 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 fiscal year 2001 request for appropriations, authorization, and
authorization of appropriations is $81,713,000 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. We are requesting appropriations and
authorization of appropriations of $303,000,000. This budget represents
the Army's final budget required to implement the first four rounds of
BRAC closure and realignment actions. In fiscal year 2000, the Army is
saving $911 million and will save $944 million annually upon completion
of these first 4 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, and infrastructure improvements. Therefore,
the Army supports additional rounds of BRAC in fiscal years 2003 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 26 as a
result of the first four rounds of BRAC. We are now in the final 2
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 in the private sector.
BRAC savings do not come immediately because of the up front costs
for implementation and the time it takes to close and dispose of
property. The resulting savings are not as substantial as originally
anticipated because potential land, facilities and equipment revenues
are being made available to support local economic opportunities that
create jobs and expand the tax base. Environmental costs are
significant and are being funded up front to facilitate economic
revitalization. The remaining challenges that lie ahead in implementing
the final round, BRAC 95, ahead of schedule include cleaning up
contaminated property, disposing of property at closed bases, and
assisting communities with reuse.
The fiscal year 2001 budget includes the resources required to
continue environmental cleanup of BRAC properties. These efforts will
make 10,767 acres of property available for reuse in fiscal year 2001
and complete restoration activities at 10 additional locations. 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 is accelerating all BRAC actions to obtain savings and
return assets to the private sector, as quickly as available resources
will allow. In 2000, the Army plans to close East Fort Baker,
California, and realign the Kelly Support Center, Pennsylvania. These
actions will nearly complete all planned closure actions with only 3
remaining for fiscal year 2001: Savanna Army Depot, Seneca Army Depot
and Information Systems Support Command leased space.
The President's Five Part Community Reinvestment Program, announced
on July 2, 1993, and the recent No Cost Economic Development (EDC)
authority in the fiscal year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act
speeds economic recovery of communities where military bases are
closing by investing in people, investing in industry and investing in
communities. The Army is making its bases available more quickly for
economic redevelopment because of the additional authorities we now
have. The Army is also processing 9 recently submitted EDC proposals
from local communities. The EDC proposals are from Bayonne Military
Ocean Terminal, Personnel Support Center in Philadelphia, Defense Depot
Memphis, Fort Chaffee, Fort Ord, Fort Pickett, Fort Ritchie, Savanna
Army Depot and Sierra Army Depot. These actions help local communities
create new private sector jobs and lessen 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 7 of 10 overseas sites in Europe,
where we are reducing the number of installations by 68 percent.
Reductions in infrastructure roughly parallel troop reductions of 70
percent. In Korea, the number of installations is dropping 20 percent.
On September 18, 1990, the Secretary of Defense announced the first
round of overseas bases to be returned. Since that time, there have
been a total of 24 announcements. As of December 31, 1999, the United
States withdrew all military forces from the Republic of Panama and
transferred all facilities. The total number of overseas sites
announced for closure or partial closure is 702 (see Table 8).
Table 8
Installations
Germany........................................................... 585
Korea............................................................. 30
France............................................................ 24
Panama............................................................ 13
Netherlands....................................................... 23
Turkey............................................................ 5
United Kingdom.................................................... 5
Greece............................................................ 8
Italy............................................................. 6
Belgium........................................................... 3
Additional announcements will occur until the base structure
matches the force identified to meet United States commitments.
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--Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Benning, Fort Stewart, Fort Leonard
Wood, Fort Lewis, Fort Bliss, Fort Carson, Fort Gordon, Fort Meade,
Fort Campbell and Redstone Arsenal. Unquestionably, these reductions
are substantial and have produced savings to sustain readiness.
The process for closing overseas 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, the National Security Council and the State Department
review these nominations. After the Secretary of Defense approves them,
DOD notifies Congress, host governments and the media. The Army ends
operations by vacating the entire installation and returning it to the
host nation. If we only reduce operations, we retain a portion of the
facilities.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE PROGRAM STATUS
The Army has completed all realignments and closure actions from
the BRAC 88, BRAC 91 and BRAC 93 rounds. The Army continues with
environmental and disposal actions to make the property available to
local communities 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 95
rounds. The Army is in the fifth year of the implementation of BRAC 95,
after which 26 of the 29 closure and 6 of 10 realignment actions will
be complete. Interim leases and no cost economic development
conveyances are making properties at these installations available to
the local communities earlier in the process. Negotiations and required
environmental restoration continue at closed and realigned
installations, and additional conveyances are likely in the near
future.
The Army has completed environmental actions at 1,032 of a total of
1,944 environmental cleanup sites through fiscal year 1999.
Environmental restoration efforts were complete at 67 installations
through fiscal year 1999, out of a total of 116 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 of
the remaining approximate 200,000 acres.
SUMMARY
Closing and realigning bases saves money that otherwise would go 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 2001.
We remain committed to promoting economic redevelopment at our BRAC
installations. We are supporting early reuse of properties through no
cost 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.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you.
CONTINGENCY REDUCTION
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I want to congratulate the Army. I think you have been
very, very good in moving ahead on your commitment to ensure
that soldiers have a decent place to live, and their families.
I am concerned about the loss of the contingency fund, because
we use that, as you well know, for picking up some loose ends.
I want to ask you at this time, the loss of that 5 percent,
does that slow up your execution in any projects? What do you
think the overall impact of that may be?
Mr. Johnson. I will just answer a little bit, then I would
like to ask General Hunter to respond more specifically to it.
It will not slow anything down. What will happen--and I have
never seen a perfect project, and we usually need some
contingency in a project--however, we will continue with the
execution of the program as far as we can go. There may be some
projects at the end that we have got to borrow money from to
fund contingencies if that is necessary.
I would like for General Hunter to expand further on that.
General. Hunter. Sir, Secretary Johnson is absolutely
right. There has virtually been no project in our construction
experience that has not had some changes that are generally
mandatory because of changed site conditions and some unknown
that could not be picked up in the planning process. So what we
will have is an impact on the speedy resolution of those
changes to keep the contractors' work progress moving forward.
That is the impact we see.
As he mentioned earlier, we would probably have to delay
award of some projects into the next fiscal year to have monies
to complete those projects, to keep on schedule.
Senator Burns. General Hunter, in a case like this, do you
kind of build in your own little contingency fund for things
that may go awry or increased costs that may be incurred?
General. Hunter. Only as we put it in the line item for
contingencies. And so when we build a project, we do build in a
contingency. But once it is taken out, it puts us sort of at
the bare contract amount.
Senator Burns. In another area--and I want to ask this
question and then I want to move on to other members--we
continue to be concerned about the Army is responsible for the
chemical demilitarization program, as you well know. Do you
have any concerns about executing this program as we proceed to
construction of more facilities? Right now, I think we only
have two facilities; is that correct?
General. Hunter. Two in operation.
Senator Burns. Do you have any concerns about that?
Mr. Johnson. We do not have any concerns about it. There is
$175 million in this program. We support that program because
it has been devolved to the Army to execute. We would be
executing construction anyway, but we will have to admit that
that does put a little spike in our program.
Senator Burns. We have been trying to get it moved to the
Department of Defense, as you well know, out of MILCON, and we
have not had a lot of luck at that. Have you tried to help us
on that in any way along the line?
Mr. Johnson. It was devolved to us and put in our budget by
the program budget decision, so there it is.
Senator Burns. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
INTERIM BRIGADE AT FORT LEWIS
Mr. Johnson, you mentioned in your statement the Army's
transformation effort. And as part of that transformation,
there is an interim brigade combat team that is to be developed
at Fort Lewis, in my home State of Washington. Can you give me
an idea of the timeframe for developing that brigade and what
the impact will be on Fort Lewis as that is developed?
Mr. Johnson. I would like to pass that on to General Van
Antwerp.
General Van Antwerp. I can take that. It is ongoing.
Actually, some equipment is already arriving on site right now.
So the initial stages of forming the interim brigade is
ongoing. We hope to, by this summer, have some training events.
By the end of this year, we plan to have those units manned at
100 percent strength.
One of the goals is, by September 2000, to have all of
those initial brigades at 100 percent strength and the 10
divisions in the Army at 100 percent strength.
Senator Murray. Is that going to require an increased
number of personnel and facilities?
General Van Antwerp. We are really scrubbing that right
now. At Fort Lewis we are taking a heavy brigade and a light
brigade and making initial or interim brigades. We think
probably the heavy may be a donor and the light will be an
acceptor. So we are hoping that it is close to a wash. But it
will probably be a small increase in people. We do think we
have the barracks space and the other functional space to
accommodate that, though.
Senator Murray. That is available time?
General Van Antwerp. Right.
Senator Murray. And your timeframe for that is September?
General Van Antwerp. Right.
Senator Murray. As I understand it, this is an interim step
towards a final objective force structure. What is the
anticipated timeframe for that completion of the transformation
to the final objective?
General Van Antwerp. That is a great question. It is
actually kind of a three-phased project. First, is these
initial brigades at Fort Lewis. Then there will be probably
between four and eight of what we are calling an interim
brigade. And then, by 2003, we hope to have made an equipment
decision of primarily what is the armored vehicle that will be
used. And by 2012, or in that neighborhood, we will stand up
the objective brigades. They will be on line.
So we need to make the buy decision on just the equipment
aspects of this. So at Fort Lewis right now, they are testing a
lot of different equipment, trying to get what we call the
operational techniques and procedures. And then, in 2003, make
an equipment decision. And then begin to field the objective
brigades, which is the final brigades.
Senator Murray. Well, they are very excited about this, so
we look forward to it.
General Van Antwerp. It is an exciting time. General Hill
and everyone is working very closely with the folks out there.
Senator Murray. The Army Guard and Reserve are playing more
and more of an important part in all of this. What will be the
impact on them as we go through this?
General Van Antwerp. I will defer to Mike and Bob here, but
great impact and great teamwork of the three components.
General Squier. Yes, ma'am, from the Army National Guard,
we will be participating with the Army as we design and develop
what the objective force will be. We will be in support of the
Army as we go through this initial brigade they are standing up
at Fort Lewis, where we can, and then as General Van Antwerp
talked about, in going to the interim brigades, the four to
eight yet to be determined by the Army, which they are working
through that process, we know that at least one of those will
be in the Army National Guard, and potentially more. And then,
as we go to the objective force, depending on how the force is
arrayed for the future, we are going to look at all of our
brigades in the Army transitioning to this objective force.
Senator Murray. Will this have an impact on your
infrastructure needs?
General Squier. It is undetermined at this point, depending
upon where they put the interim brigade. But, yes, we see this
as a work in progress and it will have to be developed. It will
be more in the sustainment piece, the types of equipment that
we are going to be transitioning to, and in the training piece.
Of course we do not have barracks in our category requirements.
General Van Antwerp. If I might add, I think we are going
to go to school on Fort Lewis on the facilities aspect of this.
We feel that probably we will need more training type
facilities for built-up areas, cities, and we call those
Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) training sites. We
think we will need more in probably the strategic mobility area
to allow more aircraft to park on ramps for faster loading, to
have more rail heads for getting the force out and deployed
quicker.
And then, the other part of it is to make sure we have the
tactical equipment shops, the maintenance shops, for this new
equipment, and all the supporting things. So those are the
three primary areas we are looking for in the future.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, this is an exciting project.
I know you love coming to my State. It is a great excuse to go
out there and take a look, if you have an opportunity.
Senator Burns. The last time I was out there, I could not
go anywhere.
Senator Murray. Well, you have to pick your times better
than the World Trade Organization (WTO).
NATIONAL GUARD RAID TEAMS
Let me ask another question about National Guard and then I
will turn it over to Senator Craig.
Your request is $59 million, and your construction deficit
for fiscal year 2001 appears to be $334 million. I also note
that you have estimated a need of $35 million for planning,
design and construction related to the National Guard civil
support teams, formerly known as the raid teams. I do not see
that reflected in your budget.
I am particularly interested in your implementation plans
for the National Guard raid teams, because one of them is
designated for Camp Murray--a good name--in Washington State.
So can you explain to me how you are budgeting for needed
construction improvements at the 27 raid teams?
General Squier. Yes, ma'am, I can. First of all, this is a
work in progress in developing this new strategy for how we
will be able to support the first responders. We have the 10
initial teams that have been put on the ground, as you are
aware, and we are adding an additional 17 through 2002. In the
planning for this particular new organization, we have
determined that we will use existing facilities to house these
new organizations until we get more fidelity to the
requirements and how they are going to operate.
As we have designed and developed that--and we are still
working through that process--we have found that there is a
need for some improvements to the facilities that we have
chosen that will allow them to be more effective and more
operationally capable to meet their future requirements. So all
of our States have come in with the requirements that would
enhance, in the unspecified minor categories, that would
enhance their ability to be more operational in a timely
fashion to support the civil first responders.
Senator Murray. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have
some other questions I will submit for the record.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Murray.
I think Senator Murray brings up a good point, General
Squier. As we have been going through this restructuring and
more of the force structure is being moved to Reserve and
Guard, and then we have spent some money in Guard facilities
and infrastructure, especially in my State of Montana, where we
were still in World War II-type facilities and now we are kind
of getting caught up.
And as that force structure depends more and more on that,
we have to build infrastructure to provide for our Reserve and
our Guard, it becomes more important now than it did just 10
short years ago, where the emphasis is. So we are concerned
about those shortages, as reflected in--and I think the Senator
brings up a good point--that we have to pay more attention to
that now than we used to in the past.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
General Squier, I think the question that Senator Murray
asked is an operative question for me also because of the raid
team being released now in the field. Are those assessments in
from the States yet where these teams are being placed and
formed?
General Squier. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. As it relates to any additional construction
that will be needed?
General Squier. Yes, sir, we have gone out and asked all
the States to give us, now that they have some fidelity, as to
how they are going to operate, especially the first 10, and
asked them for their assessments of what they could use to
improve the posture of their facilities.
Senator Craig. Well, we are very proud of what we have been
able to do at Gowen Field and at our Orchard Range and the
regional kind of training facility that has developed there.
And we are really making it that kind of first-class facility.
The chairman broached, of course, the restructuring, the
force restructuring. I guess the concern that I have had in
talking to General Kane and others is our ability to sustain
ourselves with a Guard when we are constantly asking more of it
and taking these soldiers that attempt to find a living out on
the ground in the structure of the Guard and yet they are
finding we are going to be asking more and more of their
employees in their absence. I think we have to be extremely
careful there or we may find ourselves in a much hollower
structure than we wanted, because we are not going to be able
to get the quality people.
The economy, as good as it is right now, if they leave for
2 or 3 or 4 months, it takes an awfully benevolent employer to
say, fine, walk away, instead of saying, we will just replace
you with somebody else and you may have a job when you get
back. We have had that kind of relationship with the private
sector for a long while in this country, and my frustration is,
as some people we ought to be the traffic cops of the world, we
are going to put pressure on our men and women in uniform in a
way that will destroy that relationship. I think we have to be
extremely careful with that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. I think that is just about all I have. I
guess there are some more questions on installations and the
contingency fund is probably my biggest concern right now, and
also the facilities. General Squier, just for my information,
are we getting more resistance now from employers because we
are asking the Guard to do more?
General Squier. Sir, obviously there are some indications
that there may be some problems out there with employers. We
are very proud of what we provide for our Army and there is a
big need to use all of the total Army to meet the needs of what
the Army does around the world today whether we, the Nation,
choose to do that or not.
We have not had that significant of numbers to date, but it
is going to increase significantly. We have Idaho going in in
2002. We have the 49th Division that is taking over today from
the division that is presently there. And we see more of that
for the future.
We have to balance this, though, as a nation, as to how we
are going to employ our Reserve components for the future. And
we are very concerned about the points that you make, sir, from
Idaho and from our Nation. And we are just going to have to
find some solutions that will allow us to be more effective.
That may be some shorter deployment time lines, which is some
of the things that are being talked about right now to help the
process.
Senator Burns. Up in Montana we have an Air Force at
Malmstrom. We have an integrated Red Horse there that
integrates Air Guard and regulars. And that has worked out, I
think, pretty well. I think we have to look at that in the
future.
I like the idea of training Reserve, Guard and regulars on
a regular basis. I like that idea for the simple reason that
they know each other should something happen and they have to
serve together. I think we tear down some of those
communication barriers. But I think we become a lot more
efficient, too.
I think the Red Horse situation in Malmstrom has worked out
fairly well. Well, we will continue to work with you on this,
and we will try to get you some more money.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, one more question.
Senator Burns. Yes, ma'am.
DUAL-USE FACILITIES
Senator Murray. One more question on the Guard that has to
do with dual-use facilities. And I wanted to find out, it seems
to be a fairly cost-effective way for the National Guard to
work with community counterparts, and I wanted to find out from
you what your views were on dual-use emergency management of
Federal National Guard facilities.
General Squier. A very good question, ma'am, and very
attuned to some ideas that are evolving out in the State of
Washington. We obviously support shared use as a way to be more
efficient in meeting national needs and supporting our needs.
And of course we are a community based force. That linkage with
community is very important to us.
Of course, by law, we are restricted to only being able to
fund our portion of the requirements to train and provide
administration and sustainment of the National Guard.
Senator Murray. Right.
General Squier. We would like to encourage that. We have a
prime example in what we are doing with distributive training
technology around the States, where we are leveraging the
shared use, where we can go into universities or to medical
facilities or whatever and share that capability. So I see some
very positive synergy in that direction and we want to work
those the best we can within the limitations that we have
within our Federal departments.
Senator Murray. Do you know when we will be able to get the
one going in Spokane, Washington?
General Squier. We still are working through what the exact
requirement is, ma'am. I heard briefly about that. Again, I
have to go back to I think there is a philosophical problem.
The intent is for the Federal Government to pick up the whole
facility, and then they pay their fair share. By law, that does
not work for us. We have got to find some common ground, where
they can pay their fair share and we pay our fair share for our
piece of the responsibility.
We are working through that. I see some good opportunities.
We just have not gotten there yet.
Senator Murray. Okay, I would like to work with you on
that.
General Squier. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. I will also put a footnote on that. On your
distance learning and your facilities in Montana, and all the
States, around the States and around the region, I want to
congratulate you on that project, too. General Pendergast is
very excited about what he is getting done out there. And that
is very good.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Okay, gentlemen, thank you very much for coming this
morning. As we work our way through this, we will probably have
questions from other members of the committee. And if any other
questions arise, we will present them to you and you can
respond to the individual Senator and to the committee. And we
appreciate that this morning, so thank you for coming.
[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
FUNDING LEVELS
Question. Secretary Johnson, while your fiscal year 2001 budget
looks stronger than last year's budget, a good portion of the increase
is actually allocated to the BRAC account. Why is this a good news
story?
Answer. In last year's budget, the Army asked for advanced
appropriations in the amount of $196 million. The Congress denied the
advance appropriations in fiscal year 2000, therefore, the Department
included the requirement in the fiscal year 2001 budget request which
now totals $303 million. This budget request is the final funding
required to implement all remaining closure and realignment actions.
What also remains is property cleanup and disposal, which will require
several additional years in some cases. However, the Army continues to
make progress with property disposal and support of local community
reuse plans. The Army has completed cleanup efforts at 67 installations
through fiscal year 1999 and plans to complete an additional 23
installations in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. These efforts will result
in the transfer of 60,000 acres during this same period.
FAMILY HOUSING MAINTENANCE
Question. What will be the impact of taking all of the fiscal year
2000 across-the-board reduction for the operation and maintenance
account against only the real property maintenance accounts?
Answer. Reductions to the maintenance and repair account will
result in less funding available to installation commanders to execute
major repairs on family housing. The approximate $5 million reduction
is the equivalent of the complete renovation of 72 houses, which must
be deferred until funding can becomes available.
FUNDING LEVELS
Question. What percent does the Army spend of Plant Replacement
Value (PRV) per year on facility maintenance?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the Army spent .87 percent of the
Plant Replacement value on facility maintenance. This is based on the
fiscal year 2000 Plant Replacement Value of $202.6 billion, and the
Real Property Maintenance funding of $1.8 billion. Historically, the
Army has consistently spent less than 1 percent of the PRV on facility
maintenance. Studies have shown that we should be spending about 1.75
percent of the PRV to properly maintain our facilities
PUBLIC/PRIVATE VENTURES (PPV)
Question. I understand that the Army's family housing privatization
project at Fort Carson is proceeding well. Early reports indicate that
this project is a success and that the community and the Army families
are very pleased. With this success in hand, is the Army pursuing this
approach at any other installation? If not, why not?
Answer. No, the Army is not pursuing this approach at other
privatization sites even though the Fort Carson housing privatization
effort is on track and shows great promise. We are applying early
lessons learned from the Fort Carson privatization project, which used
the Request for Proposal (RFP) procurement process, to improve the
process at future sites. In July 1998, the Army began the Residential
Communities Initiative (RCI). For the RCI program, we are using the
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) procurement process, which is a major
reform in the acquisition process and we believe will enable the Army
to acquire the necessary expertise and experience more quickly and less
expensively than the traditional RFP methods. This approach seeks to
maximize opportunities for interchange between developers, the local
community and the Army in preparing a Community Development and
Management Plan (CDMP) which lays out the scope and details of the
partnership. The three RCI projects following Fort Carson are Fort
Hood, Texas; Fort Lewis, Washington; and Fort Meade, Maryland. As we
privatize these additional sites and incorporate the lessons learned
from each site, the Army will be able to provide the best value for the
Army and families.
Question. Secretary Johnson, how will the Secretary Cohen's recent
announcement to buy out the basic allowance for housing for those
service members living on the economy impact family housing
privatization?
Answer. Current law and policy requires that service members living
in privatized housing receive the same Basic Allowance for Housing
(BAH) as their counterparts living in other private sector housing.
Overall, there would be minimal impact on the RCI program if BAH were
raised to cover 85 percent of housing costs allowable by law. However,
changing the law and raising BAH to cover 100 percent of the average
housing costs would likely impact demand for privatized housing, but we
do not know to what extent at this time.
Question. I continue to be concerned about how installations with
family housing privatization ventures and other privatization ventures
will be treated in future rounds of BRAC. Have we created a system of
``haves'' and ``have-nots'' with regards to BRAC?
Answer. We do not believe that privatization will have an impact on
the BRAC decision making process. The decision to close an installation
is based on criteria resulting in a military value for each
installation.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONTINGENCY ELIMINATION
Question. Secretary Johnson: The Army has greatly improved their
construction project execution the past several years. How will the
loss of contingency funding potentially impact your rate of execution?
Answer. Execution of the Army's fiscal year 2001 program will be a
challenge with the elimination of contingency funds for contract
changes subsequent to award. The lack of adequate funds to handle
changes during construction, those that are the result of revisions to
criteria or safety requirements, the discovery of unexpected site
conditions, design deficiencies, variations in expected quantities, and
mission changes, reduces our ability to maintain construction progress
by handling and approving changes quickly.
Question. Could this reduction cause a change in overall scope of
the projects? What other challenges will this cause?
Answer. We are designing projects to full scope with no compromise
in quality but with a target to award and complete projects within the
requested amounts. We also have re-emphasized the importance of
thorough value engineering efforts to bring costs of full-scope
projects to within the available funds. The lack of adequate funds
increases the potential for increased costs due to contractor delays
and claims; with less construction funding available. The Corps of
Engineers' management effort required to maintain timely funding of
legitimate changes will increase.
Question. When a project encounters cost over-runs, how will the
Army treat a shortfall without the contingency account?
Answer. No construction project can be expected to be completed
without some changes. The funding of changes will be dependent on
general bid savings, otherwise significant program disruption can be
expected. The need to borrow funds from un-awarded projects may delay
award of some projects until the start of the next fiscal year.
CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM
Question. Mr. Johnson, we continue to be concerned that the Army is
responsible for the Chemical-Demilitarization Program. Do you have any
concerns about executing this program as we proceed to construction of
more facilities?
Answer. To date, the Department has adequately funded this program.
Unless future reductions occur, we fully expect to effectively execute
this program as we proceed to construction of more facilities.
Question. What happens if one or several of these projects runs
into funding problems with cost variations? What will be the source of
these funds? Will the Army be stuck paying the bill?
Answer. The budget has been carefully developed to preclude serious
future funding issues. By intensely managing changes during
construction and adjusting the contractor's execution plan, risk of a
major cost overrun can be reduced. If one or several of these projects
should run into funding problems, cost overruns should be minimal and
management will evaluate options available to mitigate the increases.
However, if additional funds are required, the source to offset the
requirement will be identified at that time.
Question. In the past, the Congress has directed the Department of
Defense to make this a defense-wide account. Do we need to include bill
language to that effect?
Answer. The Defense Reform Initiative devolved oversight and
management for most chemical demilitarization activities from the
Office of the Secretary of Defense to the Department of the Army in
fiscal year 1999. The Department of Defense determined that in the
interest of organizational efficiency the program should remain within
the Army.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
WASHINGTON STATE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD MILCON FUNDING
Question. The Washington State Guard, as a result of report
language that this committee included in the fiscal year 2000 Military
Construction Appropriations Bill, is eager to proceed with planning and
design for the Readiness Center at Yakima and Spokane. I recognize that
the Yakima Center, and another Readiness Center at Bremerton, are in
the President's budget, and that planning and design has commenced,
apparently financed by the State.
Answer. You are correct. We anticipate design will be initiated in
April 2000.
Question. The President's budget requests $5.104 million for the
Yakima armory. Unfortunately, it has come to my attention that the
actual amount needed is $6.5 million. Likewise, the President's budget
requests $2.6 million for the Bremerton Readiness Center when the
actual amount needed is $4.3 million. Would you agree that the higher
sums do represent the real funding requirements for these centers?
Answer. Yes. The project costs in the President's Budget satisfy
the requirements for the existing units stationed at the Readiness
Centers. However, since the budget was submitted, the State determined
that it would be best to incorporate the new Army National Guard
Redesign Study (ADRS) requirements into the new Readiness Centers.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Question. Secretary Johnson: Is it true that your validated
military construction requirements exceed those in the future years
defense plan (FYDP)? If so, by how much? Where may we find these
requirements not listed in the FYDP?
Answer. Yes, the Army's valid construction requirements far exceed
the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) which contains only those
projects for which funding is programmed or budgeted. We project our
annual requirement based on revitalizing all required facilities in the
inventory over 57 years and buying out deficit construction
requirements over 25 years. For fiscal year 2001, the cost of this
requirement exceeds our budget request by over $2.4 billion--more than
$1.5 billion for the Active Army, more than $0.5 billion for the Army
National Guard, over $0.1 billion for the Army Reserve, and nearly $0.3
billion for Army Family Housing. With the exception of the National
Guard, the Army does not keep an official list of projects that exceed
the FYDP because it is too costly and time consuming to do so. However,
the Guard is required to compile their entire construction backlog in
their Infrastructure Requirements Plan, which is updated and provided
to the Congress annually.
HISTORIC PROPERTIES
Question. The Army has a large, and growing, number of historic
properties. These properties cost an inordinate amount of money to
maintain and renovate. Is the Army working on a master plan to deal
with the issue of historic property preservation and renovation?
Answer. Historic properties do cost more to maintain and renovate,
but with the longer life-cycle of historic materials, the cost per
square foot tends to average out very close to the levels for modern
construction. The Army is taking multiple steps to improve its
management of the historic property inventory, including streamlining
regulatory approaches and testing new management approaches. In
response to Congressional requests in 1997 regarding compliance with
the National Historic Preservation Act, the Army embarked on
alternative procedures for compliance. Working with the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the Army is developing a
process to achieve compliance with the National Historic Preservation
Act while maximizing benefits from efforts to meet the DOD requirement
to prepare Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plans. The new
approach, which has recently undergone significant revisions and is
being staffed within the Army, allows Army installations to consult
with the State Historic Preservation Office, the ACHP, Native peoples,
and interested parties on the Historic Properties Component of the
management plan. Upon reaching agreement on historic property
management techniques, the installation then operates without specific
project reviews of all activities identified in the plan for a period
of 5 years. This streamlined approach is designed to allow
installations to focus on resolving technical preservation issues,
minimize paperwork, and reduce overall project costs.
In another effort to bring improved management to this function,
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment
directed the establishment of an Historic Properties Initiative. The
five components of this program are:
--Explore and test creative uses and reuses of Army historic
buildings. The Army currently has approximately 12,000 historic
buildings listed on or eligible to be listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. Another 85,000 buildings and
family housing quarters must be evaluated for historic
significance over the next 20 years. The Army is working with
the Department of Defense and the other Services to categorize
these facilities to define classes that do not qualify for
further consideration as historic properties. This action would
eliminate the potential cost to evaluate all aging properties
and allow the Army to focus on the reasonable utilization of
the remaining historic properties. A component of effective
inventory management is efficient use and reuse by the Army.
--Pursue innovative funding and operating methods. The Army is
challenged to meet the funding requirements for proper care of
its historic buildings. Alternative funding sources and
methods, such as expanding gift acceptance authority, seeking
sponsors, leasing to third parties and establishing a trust
fund, are being explored to reduce costs and improve care.
--Stimulate private investment in preservation, maintenance and
reuse. When Army use is not economically feasible or
practicable and buildings are suitable for out-leasing or
excessing, we will explore non-Army use of historic buildings.
Other federal agencies, state or local governments, and the
private sector will be evaluated as potential users.
--Engage public, private and non-profit partners to support Army
goals, leveraging Army assets with other resources. The Army
has entered into cooperative agreements with the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation and the National Trust for
Historic Preservation to utilize their expertise in various
aspects of historic property management.
--Increase awareness of historic properties and recognize
innovations. In order to improve the compliance record and take
a proactive stance in management, we intend to educate Army
leadership and soldiers about the resources and the services
available to assist in their daily care and maintenance.
Creative management procedures and efforts to preserve historic
properties through better utilization and cost reduction will
be encouraged, recognized and rewarded throughout the Army. The
first annual Secretary of the Army Awards for Historic
Preservation will be presented during National Preservation
Week (mid-May) this year.
Department of the Air Force
STATEMENT OF RUBY B. DEMESME, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
(MANPOWER, RESERVE AFFAIRS, INSTALLATIONS
AND ENVIRONMENT)
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MAJ. GEN. EARNEST O. ROBBINS, II, HEADQUARTERS USAF, CIVIL
ENGINEER, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, INSTALLATIONS AND
LOGISTICS
BRIG. GEN. CRAIG R. MCKINLEY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL
GUARD
BRIG. GEN. ROBERT E. DUIGNAN, DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF, AIR FORCE
RESERVE
Introduction of witnesses
Senator Burns. We will now move to the United States Air
Force. It is good to see you again. We are pleased to have the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower, Reserve
Affairs, Installations and Environment, Ms. DeMesme, with us
today. It is nice to see you again, and thank you for coming.
We have Major General Robbins, the Air Force Civil
Engineer; General McKinley, Deputy Director of the Air National
Guard; and General Duignan, Deputy to the Chief of the Air
Force Reserve.
Madam, we appreciate you coming today and talking about
military construction and allied appropriations. I would ask
you to keep your statements brief, if you would. Your complete
statement will be made a part of the record, and we look
forward to your testimony.
Do you have any opening statement, Senator Murray?
Senator Murray. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. We look forward to your statement.
Senator Craig. I will make my statement in the form of a
question.
Senator Burns. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF RUBY B. DEMESME
Ms. DeMesme. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to present
to you the Air Force fiscal year 2001 Military Construction
(MILCON) program. And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and
this committee for your continuing support for our uniformed
members and their families, especially during the last budget
cycle. Your support of our compensation and benefit packages
sent a very powerful message to our members and their families
that you are aware of their many sacrifices and that you care
about their well-being.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank this committee for
support of last year's Kosovo supplemental bill. Because of
your action, we were able to fund more quality of life, force
protection, and environmental projects at our overseas bases,
and we continue to work with our European and Asian partners to
burden-share the cost of these facilities to the maximum extent
possible.
Mr. Chairman, we remain committed to our mission and our
people. Our goal is to balance the needs of the total force so
as to minimize any adverse impact on unit readiness and
modernization and quality-of-life programs. I have submitted my
written statement for the record and will take this time to
highlight a few areas in our fiscal year 2001 Total Force
MILCON program, which includes Military Family Housing (MFH),
privatization initiatives, and Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) program actions.
Our $1.65 billion total force MILCON budget request
supports our readiness objectives for our highly mobile
aerospace force. Our program includes support for the F-22
fighter, the C-17 airlifter, the B-2 bomber, and construction
of a training range in Idaho, and more. As you are aware, the
constant high operational tempo and the allure of the
opportunities created by a robust economy are making it
difficult to keep our people in uniform. Many have grown weary
of long periods of separation from their families, and many
work and live with their families in facilities which are below
the standards of their surrounding communities.
We need to do more in the quality-of-life arena. This is
why MILCON is so important to us. By targeting MILCON, we can
improve working conditions and provide quality, affordable and
safe living environments for more of our uniformed members and
their families. Our housing program is designed to do just
that. Part of our comprehensive program includes housing
privatization.
Mr. Chairman, in January, I had the privilege of
participating in the ribbon-cutting ceremony of the first 92 of
420 privately owned units at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas;
and this is a true success story. Our housing program includes
six new privatization initiatives, for a total of 6,921
additional units. And I want to thank this committee for your
support of our housing program.
In the area of utility privatization and asset management,
we have identified 435 of our 640 systems as potential
privatization candidates. And we issued a request for proposals
for 34 utility systems in January of 2000. We will complete our
evaluation of 225 systems by December 2000, and expect to award
additional systems by January of 2001.
We continue to look for ways to leverage our scarce
resources, which brings us to our Brooks City Base Concept. We
believe this concept will reduce base operating expenses and
free up funds for our higher priority programs. We look forward
to sharing the results of our efforts and any subsequent plans
with this committee as we work together to maintain faithful
stewardship of our Nation's assets.
Our installations play a very important role in executing
United States national strategies and are the platforms from
which diverse missions and strategies are launched. To meet our
objectives, we cannot afford to continue spending our scarce
resources on obsolete facilities. Which is why additional BRAC
rounds are so important.
I want to thank this committee for its support of the BRAC,
no-cost economic development conveyance (EDC) legislation. This
legislation allows communities the opportunity to request
relief from existing debts and to use those funds for reuse. I
have personally approved four no-cost EDC's to date for Lowry
Air Force Base, Colorado, Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, South
Carolina, and March Air Force Base, California, as well as
Kelly Air Force Base in Texas. We estimate that these will save
communities over $140 million.
Although our successes are many, we still have a lot of
excess infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, BRAC is the most effective
tool we have to address the excess infrastructure at our
installations and to help us reshape our infrastructure to
match our missions and our modernization plans. We strongly
support the Secretary of Defense's request for two additional
rounds of base closures.
While we continue to work within existing authorities to
reduce Air Force infrastructure, there is no substitute for
BRAC. We would appreciate this committee's support for two
additional BRAC rounds.
In conclusion, we realize the Air Force would not be the
world's premier aerospace force without your strong support
over the years. This budget submission provides a delicate
balance among our people, readiness and modernization needs,
but it also reflects our commitment to provide better working
and living environments for our people and the quality of life
at Air Force installations around the world for our total force
members.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee. I
am happy to answer any questions you might have 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 2001 Military Construction (MILCON) program.
The MILCON program reflects a delicate balance among our people,
readiness, and modernization needs, which are vital to sustaining a
decisive and premier aerospace fighting force. Mr. Chairman, this
committee's continuing support of the Air Force MILCON program is
greatly appreciated and, on behalf of our uniformed members and their
families, I want to thank you and this committee for your support,
especially during the last budget cycle.
OVERVIEW
The United States Air Force is the most technologically advanced
and powerful aerospace force in the world today. To maintain this
strategic advantage, we continue to balance a myriad of missions around
the world ranging from major conflicts and peacekeeping operations to
humanitarian relief efforts. Although the number of uniformed Air Force
members is the lowest since the end of the Cold War, the constant high
operational tempo far exceeds the tempo of that era when we had over
twice the number of people. Consequently, the demands placed on our
people, and the allure of the opportunities created by a robust
economy, make it very difficult to keep them in uniform without
addressing their concerns, which range from health care and pay, to
providing better conditions for them and their families to live, work,
play, and worship. As a result of the constant high operational tempo,
the Air Force is paying a heavy price to meet the challenges in the
areas of recruiting and retention. This is why we consider our MILCON
and housing programs as vital components in addressing these
challenges.
As one of the primary pillars supporting Air Force quality of life
initiatives, the MILCON program provides better working facilities and
safe, affordable, and quality housing for our people and their
families. Regrettably, the fiscal year 2001 MILCON funding continues on
a downward trend, which began in the 1980's, and our budget submission
reflects only one-third of our total validated MILCON requirements. The
Air Force continues to under-invest in a number of programs, including
MILCON, Military Family Housing (MFH), and Real Property Maintenance
(RPM), because of the many high priorities competing for limited
funding. Consequently, because of the large number of unneeded
facilities and infrastructure remaining after the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Commission decisions, we are compelled to continue
investing scarce resources to maintain them.
The Air Force seeks to balance the needs of the Total Force so as
to minimize any negative impact on unit readiness and modernization and
quality of life programs by targeting scarce resources towards our most
critical needs. Our installation programs continue to reflect hard
decisions based on tough choices, but the Air Force recognizes that
every dollar invested in MILCON is an investment in our people, our
most treasured resource. Our Total Force of active-duty members,
Guardsmen, Reservists, civilians, and contractors are the backbone of
our aerospace force and are the reason our Air Force is the premier
aerospace force in the world today.
The transition from a Cold War garrison force to the revolutionary
Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF) construct is enabling the Air Force
to meet the Nation's demands for deployed forces, and to respond to the
stresses being placed on our uniformed members and their families by
the constant high operational tempo. We continue to ensure the highest
priorities of the Total Force are satisfied first, using the following
methodology:
--Maintain our operations and maintenance programs to preserve
mission support infrastructure, as well as the quality of life
of our personnel and their families.
--Ensure 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.
--Ensure realistic training for our aircrews and access to ranges.
--Reinvest in the few remaining overseas bases, which, even after
host-nation burdensharing, require funds to maintain critical
facilities necessary to sustain Air Force core competencies.
--Focus on cleaning up our Active and Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) installations to protect human health and the
environment, and facilitates reuse at BRAC bases.
To meet these daunting challenges and leverage our limited dollars
that support people, readiness, and modernization needs, we look for
better business practices through private sector business ventures. We
are pleased to report on our first military family housing
privatization success story.
In January 2000, the Air Force celebrated the grand opening of
Frank Tejeda Estates at Lackland AFB, Texas, named after the former
Congressman from Texas. This 8:1 return on investment is providing 420
housing units for our lower ranking airmen several years ahead of the
conventional MILCON process. This is a great example of leveraging our
limited resources, and I thank this committee for its support.
Although not part of the MILCON appropriations, I want to briefly
touch upon a significant concern for us, the Air Force RPM. Our RPM
funding is at what we call the Preventive Maintenance Level, which
sustains mission operations, until we can upgrade facilities and
infrastructure through the MILCON program. Although we fund our RPM
account at 1 percent of our overall plant replacement value, the
backlog of maintenance and repair continues to grow past the current
$4.3 billion level, placing additional strain on our people who are
working in deteriorated facilities. We know that you share our concerns
and are appreciative of the additional funds this committee has
provided over the past four years for quality of life enhancements.
Mr. Chairman, I will now discuss the major programs in our fiscal
year 2001 MILCON budget request. I will review the Total Force MILCON
program, which includes the MFH program and privatization initiatives.
And, I will address the Air Force BRAC account and our perspective on
the need for two more rounds of base closures.
TOTAL FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
The Total Force MILCON program consists of five principal areas:
Current Mission; New Mission; Planning & Design and Unspecified Minor
Construction; Environmental; and BRAC. Current Mission construction
revitalizes existing facilities and infrastructure, and builds new
facilities to correct existing deficiencies. New Mission construction
supports the beddown of new weapon systems and force structure
realignments. Planning & Design and Unspecified Minor Construction
include funds to design our construction projects and to fund a small
program to handle urgent, unforeseen construction requirements. The
environmental program supports those regulatory compliance projects,
which, by law, requires accomplishment, or to avoid any health or
safety risks to people on or off our installations. The BRAC program
supports the closure and realignment of bases previously selected by
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commissions and includes
environmental cleanup and compliance costs at closed bases.
For fiscal year 2001, we are requesting a program of $1.65 billion
for MILCON. This request includes $1.58 billion for active duty MILCON
($531 million for traditional MILCON and $1.05 billion for MFH); $50
million for Air National Guard (ANG); $15 million for Air Force Reserve
(AFR); and $12.8 million for BRAC MILCON.
TOTAL FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Our Total Force MILCON and MFH programs are developed using the
following facility investment strategy:
--Sustain and Operate What We Own
--Beddown New Missions
--Uphold Quality of Life
--Optimal Use of Public and Private Resources
--Reduce Infrastructure
--Environmental Leadership
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Our facility investment strategy identifies and distributes funds
based on the most urgent needs of the Total Force. The strategy
provides a mechanism for allocating funds based on the priorities of
the Major Commands (to include the ANG and AFR), Chief of Staff, and
Secretary of the Air Force.
To determine priorities, each Major Command submits a prioritized,
unconstrained list of its construction requirements. Subsequently, we
use a weighted matrix to establish a priority list based on the most
urgent needs of the Total Force. The Air Force leadership reviews and
approves the final priority list.
Sustain and operate what we own
Our fiscal year 2001 current mission MILCON program consists of 39
projects totaling $363 million. These projects include significant
infrastructure improvements to airfield ramps and water distribution
systems; upgrade operations, maintenance and corrosion control
complexes; and, in the spirit of joint cooperation, our continued
support for air operations on Army installations. With these projects,
we continue the ``sustain what we own'' concept to identify the most
urgent priorities of the Total Force, while constantly looking for
opportunities to consolidate functions and reduce infrastructure.
Beddown new missions
The F-22, C-17, and B-2 are new weapon systems designed to enhance
the capabilities of our forces. These systems will provide the rapid,
precise, global response that enables our combat commanders to respond
decisively to conflicts in support of national security objectives.
Our MILCON program supports new weapon system requirements to
include, but not limited to, the F-22 fighter, C-17 airlifter, B-2
bomber, and the enhanced training range in Idaho (Juniper Butte Range).
Our fiscal year 2001 new mission MILCON program consists of 20
projects, totaling $130.8 million.
F-22 Raptor
The F-22 Raptor is the Air Force's next generation air superiority
fighter replacement for the F-15. The proposed location for two
training squadrons is Tyndall AFB, Florida. The fiscal year 2001 MILCON
includes two F-22 projects at Tyndall AFB totaling $25 million.
C-17 Globemaster-III
The C-17 Globemaster-III aircraft will replace our fleet of C-141
Starlifters. The C-17 has established an outstanding track record as a
rapid global mobility asset by combining the C-141's reliability, with
the C-5's capability to carry oversize cargo, and the C-130's
capability to land and maneuver on short, unimproved forward-located
airstrips. To support this program, our budget request includes
facilities at McChord AFB, Washington; Charleston AFB, South Carolina;
and our first Air National Guard location at Jackson International
Airport, Mississippi. The fiscal year 2001 C-17 MILCON program includes
four projects totaling $23 million.
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 United
States bomber modernization program. Our fiscal year 2001 MILCON
program includes two projects at Whiteman AFB, Missouri, totaling $12
million.
Enhanced training range in Idaho (Juniper Butte)
The Air Force is building a training range and modifying airspace
in Southwest Idaho, which will enhance local training for aircrews from
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho. This project is an excellent example of how
the Air Force strikes an effective balance between training and
readiness requirements and local environmental, cultural, and economic
concerns. The new range will include acreage for drop zone sites; no-
drop zone sites; simulated target areas; and emitter sites. This multi-
year request includes $10 million in fiscal year 2001 for phase III.
Air National Guard B-1 Beddown at Robins AFB
This $9 million project supports the conversion from F-15 to B-1
aircraft and the relocation from Dobbins ARB, Georgia, to Robins AFB,
Georgia. The facility space will support munitions build-up and
storage, munitions maintenance training, and administration.
Uphold quality of life investments
Our national security policy relies on aerospace presence around
the world, which means the Air Force must be ready to respond anywhere
in the world on very short notice. While modern technology enables our
forces to perform their missions more effectively, technology cannot
substitute for high quality people. By continuing to support quality of
life initiatives, we are letting our people know that we are aware of
their many sacrifices in support of national objectives and are
committed to addressing their concerns. Yes, we acknowledge that we are
spreading our people thin, but we also realize that it is much cheaper
to retain them than to train new people, and we need experienced
warriors to maintain our systems and to train junior airmen. This is
why our MILCON and housing programs are very important when it comes to
retention, which directly affects readiness.
The Air Force dormitory program is a proven quality of life force
multiplier. An update on our three-step dormitory investment strategy,
as outlined in the Air Force Dormitory Master Plan as follows: (1)
buyout of all permanent party central latrine dormitories (now complete
given the generous congressional support in fiscal year 1999); (2) the
conversion to 1+1 room configurations; and (3) the replacement of our
worst existing dorms is on track for 2009.
This year's MILCON program funds ten enlisted dormitory projects
identified as among the most critical requirements in our dormitory
master plan for a total of $91.5 million. Other quality of life
initiatives include a child development center at Bolling AFB, DC; and
fitness centers at McGuire AFB, New Jersey; Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona;
Los Angeles AFB, California; and Little Rock AFB, Arkansas; for a total
of $38 million.
Now that our housing program is in progress, we are constructing a
Fitness Center Master Plan. Physical Fitness Centers continue to rate
high in our quality of life surveys, and are needed to help our members
develop and maintain their physical fitness requirements. They also
provide a place where stress, tension, and anger can be channeled into
non-violent activities.
Overseas MILCON: Significant need to reinvest
First, I thank this committee for supporting the Department of
Defense Kosovo Supplemental Bill last year. The additional funding will
enable us to fund mission critical facilities that are vital for
deployed forces supporting contingency operations.
The Air Force realizes that not all threats to the United States
national security are conventional in nature. These non-conventional
threats necessitate we invest in force protection infrastructure,
safety, and quality of life at our overseas locations, as well as at
home. 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 theaters. Because of reduced MILCON
investment, coupled with restrictive host-nation funding, we cannot
sustain overseas requirements. We are actively pursuing NATO funding,
increased host-nation funding, and payments-in-kind to realize a good
measure of success. But, the quality of life improvements we owe to our
personnel stationed overseas remain greater than available burden-
sharing funding can satisfy.
Our fiscal year 2001 MILCON program for our European and Pacific
installations total $48 million. The program consists of a fire
training facility at Incirlik AB, Turkey; and two water distribution
system upgrade projects in Korea; one at Osan AB and one at Kunsan AB.
The program also includes a munitions storage igloo project that will
support the Bomber Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) concept at Diego
Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory; and a project that constructs
replacement facilities, enabling the out-year phased construction of
sixteen wide-body aircraft parking spaces at Rota Naval Station, Spain.
These parking spaces will provide an en-route strategic airlift hub
critical to United States strategy. There are also two overseas
dormitory projects; one at Aviano AB, Italy, and another at Osan AB,
Korea. We strongly ask for your support of these crucial operational
and quality of life projects, which represent critical requirements for
airmen stationed overseas.
We understand the desire to maximize the contributions of others
where possible, and we take advantage of every opportunity. 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.
Although we do not have projects in the budget for Rhein Main AB,
Germany, I want to make you aware of the Air Force's recently signed
agreement with various functions in Germany to transfer the mission
capabilities of Rhein Main AB to Ramstein AB and Spangdahlem AB,
Germany. This agreement will ensure the facilities and infrastructure
are in place to provide the same support for United States operations
in Europe. However, the agreement was never intended to, and will not,
address current mission facility or housing requirements for Ramstein
and Spangdahlem, so we must continue to support these requirements. We
must not continue to ask our people stationed overseas on the front
lines to excel every day in support of our Nation's security interests
while living and working in deteriorated, deplorable conditions, which
suffer from years of minimal funding. We strongly solicit your
favorable support of our overseas program.
Optimize use of public and private resources
As we continue to operate in a constrained fiscal environment, we
must look for ways to free up scarce resources for the preservation of
our existing assets. To do this, we are adopting modern business
practices, e.g., eliminating redundancy; using competition to improve
quality and reduce costs; and reducing support infrastructure. While we
look for advantages through out-sourcing and privatization efforts, we
are mindful of the impact it may have on national security and on our
people and strive to seek a careful, balanced approach to the
exploration of new asset management initiatives.
Housing privatization
The Air Force is pleased with its first housing privatization
project at Lackland AFB, Texas, awarded in August 1998. As stated
earlier, on January 28, 2000, we participated in a ribbon cutting
ceremony for the first 92 units. We also have three more projects under
solicitation review at Robins AFB, Georgia; Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; and
Dyess AFB, Texas. While the Lackland AFB project took longer than we
would have liked, the experience gained in developing housing
privatization policies and procedures will enhance our handling of
future challenges. We are consulting with national real estate and
financial institutions to improve our performance in housing
privatization, and we firmly believe that through privatization, we can
provide improved housing to more airmen in less time than using the
standard military construction process. We request your support by
extending the housing privatization authorities beyond February 2001.
Utilities privatization
We are implementing the defense reform initiative to privatize
utility systems. Our goal is to privatize utility systems where it
makes economic sense and does not negatively impact national security.
We have identified 435 of our 640 systems as potential privatization
candidates. We issued a request for proposals for 34 utility systems in
January 2000. We have now reached a critical time in our privatization
effort, as we transition to the execution phase. We are working
diligently to ensure that we meet the goals established by the
Department of Defense to privatize all utility systems by 2003.
Laboratory infrastructure
Another private sector venture the Air Force is exploring is the
Brooks City Base Concept. Brooks AFB, Texas, is a science and education
oriented installation that houses some of the most prestigious Air
Force schools and organizations. Under recently enacted legislation, we
are assessing innovative ideas to improve Air Force asset management by
reducing base operating costs, which in turn will free up funds for
higher priority programs. We are considering a plan to convey the
entire base's real property to the City of San Antonio and will then
lease back facilities required to accomplish the Air Force missions.
This greater reliance on the private sector and local government for
base support services will result in the receipt of municipal services
at no cost, a share of future development revenues, and other
compensation from the City of San Antonio as fair market value
compensation for the base property. The initiative would also 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.
These partnerships with local communities have great potential and
may, with the approval of this committee, become models for future Air
Force infrastructure plans. We look forward to sharing the results of
our efforts and any subsequent plans with this committee as we work
together to maintain faithful stewardship of our Nation's assets.
Reduce infrastructure: Demolish and consolidate
Our commanders continue to express their concerns about having to
spend their scarce resources to operate and maintain excess and
obsolete facilities. While we strive to increase our RPM dollars 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 four fiscal years, we have demolished
approximately 11 million square feet of obsolete facilities. Our fiscal
year 2001 budget submission continues this commitment.
Environmental MILCON: Lead by example
As our record demonstrates, 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 environmental regulations and laws, and we seek out
partnerships with local regulatory and commercial sector counterparts
to share ideas and create an atmosphere of trust.
Our continuing efforts to foster an environmental ethic within the
Air Force, both here in the United States 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, conservation, and pollution prevention. Our record
speaks for itself. We have reduced our open enforcement actions from
245 in fiscal year 1992 to just 10 at the end of fiscal year 1999.
Our environmental compliance MILCON request for fiscal year 2001
totals $19 million for seven, level-1 ``must pay'' compliance projects.
All of these projects satisfy level-1 requirements, which refer to
conditions or facilities currently out of compliance with environmental
laws or regulations, including those subject to a compliance agreement.
Our program includes two fire-training facilities, which are closed due
to fuel-contaminated property and potential ground water contamination.
These fire-training facilities are located at Incirlik AB, Turkey; and
Fort Smith ANGB, Arkansas. We have water treatment facility projects at
Beale AFB, California; and Moody AFB, Georgia; a hazardous material
storage facility at Eielson AFB, Alaska; a water distribution system
upgrade project at Vandenberg AFB, California; and a generator fuel
storage facility at Cape Romanzof Radar Site, Alaska.
Planning and design
Our request for fiscal year 2001 planning and design is $66
million. These funds are required to complete design of the fiscal year
2002 projects and to start design of our fiscal year 2003 projects.
Unspecified minor construction
We have requested $18 million in fiscal year 2001 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 1996 through
fiscal year 1999, an additional $7 million was reprogrammed into the
account to fund urgent requirements. The fiscal year 1996 through
fiscal year 1999 accounts are fully obligated, or committed, to valid
projects.
MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
As in years past, family housing is one of our most important
quality of life programs. We are convinced that no other facility
program so greatly influences the performance and commitment of our
people than having quality homes. To reinforce this commitment, in
August 1999 we published our first-ever Family Housing Master Plan that
will guide our MILCON, O&M, and privatization efforts through fiscal
year 2010. The average age of our housing inventory is 36 years and
65,000 of our 106,000 units require revitalization.
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, particularly overseas, it is
imperative that we continue to emphasize quality of life programs to
mitigate the stress. Consequently, we have developed, consistent with
the corporate priorities of the Air Force, a housing program to best
serve the most urgent needs of our families.
Our family housing investment has three equally important prongs:
the replacement/improvement program, the operation and maintenance
program, and the leverage we can obtain through a balanced
privatization program. Our $224 million fiscal year 2001 family housing
replacement and improvement program will construct two units and
replace 270 worn-out units at two separate locations. We also propose
to improve 1,278 units at 12 locations, and seek authority for six new
privatization initiatives for 6,921 units, and continuation of the
efforts at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma. The housing operations & maintenance
program totals $826 million. It supports ``must pay'' requirements such
as refuse collection, snow removal, utilities, leases, and critical
housing maintenance tasks. These are necessary to keep the houses in
good condition. Finally, we will use privatization at selected
locations to leverage our funds, while meeting the strict criteria
established by our leadership, economic viability and severability.
Privatization is just one tool that allows us to accelerate the buyout
of repairs to inadequate homes, and we are committed to a careful,
measured approach to balance privatization initiatives with traditional
MILCON.
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 a
minimum of 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 2001 improvement request is $174 million. This
amount revitalizes or privatizes 8,199 homes at 24 bases as identified
in the Housing Master Plan. This includes $56 million for 7,147 homes
stateside, $112 million for 1,052 homes overseas, and $6 million for
seven infrastructure improvement projects. In the development of our
Housing Master Plan, Air Force engineers traveled to every location in
the Air Force, except Italy and Turkey. They assessed every housing
type and 108 items within each house. After a year of analysis, our
results show that most of the worst housing in the Air Force is located
in Germany and the United Kingdom. The significant amount of
improvement funding identified for overseas reflects, not only
consistency with the Master Plan, but our commitment to our personnel
and their families overseas to improve their quality of life now,
rather than years from now.
Housing construction
We are requesting $37 million for fiscal year 2001 projects, all at
three stateside bases to construct two houses and replace 270 existing
houses that are no longer economical to maintain.
Operations, utilities, maintenance, and leasing
Our fiscal year 2001 request for family housing operations,
utilities, maintenance, and leasing is $826 million. These funds are
necessary to operate and maintain the 106,000 homes in the Air Force
inventory and for 7,200 leases worldwide. Approximately 75 percent of
this request represents ``must-pay'' requirements due to the Air
Force's obligation as the landlord for items such as utilities, refuse
collection, leases and other key services. The remaining 25 percent of
the funds are for essential maintenance of homes and infrastructure.
Our fiscal year 2001 request includes $114 million for leasing 284
domestic homes, 3,027 foreign homes, and 3,835 Section 801 homes. The
leasing program supports critical missions in non-traditional
locations, such as foreign sites where family housing is not available,
and for recruiters in the United States not located near military
installations.
Planning and design
We have requested $13 million for planning and design. This
includes planning and design for new construction and improvement
programs.
BASE CLOSURE ACCOUNT
First, I thank this committee for your support of the BRAC No-Cost
Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) legislation. This legislation
authorizes the Air Force to transfer property at closed or realigned
military installations without consideration, via an EDC, to support
local redevelopment as a result of changed local economic
circumstances. This legislation has been instrumental in allowing
communities, such as the former Lowry AFB, Colorado, to expedite their
reuse efforts and is a win-win situation for local communities and the
Department of Defense.
The Air Force fiscal year 2001 BRAC program request reflects a
thorough review of remaining requirements and careful budgeting to
fulfill validated requirements to the greatest extent possible within
the budget constraints. We continue to use the full flexibility of the
account to manage our requirements and we appreciate your support of
using BRAC funds until expiration within the environmental program.
Included in the $369.7 million Air Force BRAC submission is a $12.8
million project for a Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO)
facility at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. This project supports the fiscal
year 1995 BRAC decision to realign Kelly AFB, Texas.
We continue to work closely with communities to ensure that we
achieve our common goal to expeditiously transfer property to the local
redevelopment authorities to help facilitate reuse, and we are pleased
to report a few of our successes. At Reese AFB, Texas, we implemented
the last remedy in place (LRIP) cleanup milestone four years faster
than predicted and achieved a cost avoidance of $10 million in capital
costs through close coordination with our regulatory partners. In
fiscal year 1999 we also completed the LRIP milestones at Roslyn ANGS,
New York; Eaker AFB, Arkansas; and Bergstrom AFB, Texas. In May 1999,
we celebrated the grand opening of the Austin-Bergstrom Airport. This
monumental event saved the community $200 million by relocating the
planned airport to the former Bergstrom AFB. Therefore, we consider
Bergstrom an environmental and reuse success story.
I also highlight the closure and realignment of the Illinois Air
National Guard's 126th Air Refueling Wing, which operates the KC-135,
from the former Chicago O'Hare ARS to Scott AFB, Illinois. In exchange
for the Air Force's property at O'Hare International Airport, the City
of Chicago paid over $102 million to fund the movement of personnel,
equipment and construction of facilities at Scott AFB. A portion of the
former O'Hare ARS is now the planned site for the International
Headquarters of United Airlines and the Illinois Air Guard is now the
owner of world-class facilities that complement the mission of Scott
AFB.
The final success story I want to highlight happened at the former
Loring AFB, Maine. In fiscal year 2000, the base also completed its
critical LRIP milestone and are in the final stages for complete
turnover of operations to the redevelopment authority. We continue to
learn many lessons as we close and realign our BRAC bases, and intend
to apply them to future base conversions should the Congress approve
additional rounds of closures.
As we focus on closing our BRAC environmental restoration sites, we
remain committed to the selection of cleanup remedies that are
protective of human health and the environment. In addition to
converting bases to civilian reuse, we are continuing the realignment
beddown process at remaining installations to ensure base closure
actions neither disrupts our operational requirements nor adversely
affects quality of life. We appreciate the support of this committee in
helping us meet these objectives.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one final comment on BRAC. We
cannot overemphasize how the reductions in Air Force manpower and force
structure have outpaced those in infrastructure. Since 1989, the
Department of Defense has reduced force structure by 36 percent, but
infrastructure has only been reduced by 21 percent. Only additional
BRAC rounds can correct this disparity. We cannot afford to continue
spending our scarce resources on unneeded infrastructure. Furthermore,
cost savings generated from two additional BRAC rounds are necessary to
ensure we have the proper force structure and topline to address our
priority needs for people, readiness, and modernization. We strongly
support the Secretary of Defense's request for two additional rounds of
base closures. Mr. Chairman, while we continue to work within existing
authorities to reduce Air Force infrastructure, there is no substitute
for BRAC. We would appreciate this committee's support for two
additional BRAC rounds.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to again thank this committee
for its strong support of the Air Force MILCON program, which supports
Air Force people, readiness, and modernization needs. I also want to
thank this committee for sending a powerful message to our uniformed
members and their families that you are aware of their many sacrifices
and appreciate their dedication to the defense of this great nation by
approving the military pay and compensation package. This action
coupled with your continued support of the Air Force MILCON program
sends a positive message to our people that we not only hear them but
we care about them and want to keep them in uniform. We realize we
cannot continue as the world's premier aerospace force without our
people, and providing better working and living conditions demonstrate
our commitment to them.
Our installations serve as our launch platforms to expeditiously
project aerospace power around the world when called upon, as well as
to provide places for our people to live and work. This budget
submission reflects our commitment to maintain quality Air Force
installations around the world for our Total Force members.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
CONTINGENCY FUNDS
Senator Burns. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I want to start off. Just like with the Army, we lost some
5 percent of our contingency fees, and I will ask you the same
question. How do you think this will affect our goal of
facilities and quality-of-life projects that we have already
got in the planning stage and also in the execution stage for
the Air Force?
Ms. DeMesme. The contingency issue is one that is very dear
to us. We certainly believe that it is important that we
maintain contingency funds. We are vulnerable when we are
unable to adjust to unplanned and unforeseen situations as we
are constructing buildings.
At the present time, there is some impact on our programs.
I am going to let General Robbins explain to you what those
are.
General Robbins. Sir, you are right about Red Horse.
It is a great success.
Senator Burns. In bridge, is that a jump shift?
General Robbins. Yes, sir.
I would echo what General Hunter said. The pain that we
will feel with the loss of contingency will be shown after the
projects are awarded and construction is underway. There will
be a bow wave effect at some point, when you have diverted
money from upcoming projects to fund contingencies, and those
are underway, you ultimately find projects that you can no
longer execute.
When we saw this reduction coming in the budget, we did an
analysis of the last 5 years of our program, and found that we
have averaged 7-8 percent cost change in our projects. About 80
percent of that has come due to unforeseen site conditions,
design errors, acts of God in terms of weather delays and so
forth; and then 20 percent has come as a result of changes in
mission, user requirements, and equipment changes from the time
the project was originally designed.
So there will definitely be an impact on us. To quantify it
and specify it in this particular project, you do not know
until it happens. The Air Force has typically budgeted 5
percent contingencies for new construction and 10 percent for
those projects that are renovations, because you do not do
destructive testing necessarily when you go in and find out the
problems before you begin.
KELLY AIR FORCE BASE
Senator Burns. Another troubling thing, Madam Secretary and
gentlemen, what is going on at Kelly? The announcement by the
Secretary the other day, we are asked to reinforce our funds in
BRAC and then ask for two more rounds of BRAC, and then we hear
the announcement of the Secretary within the last 2 weeks of
some forgiveness of some obligations that were made at Kelly.
Tell me about that, and can we expect any other announcements
like those? Or do you have any details on that?
Ms. DeMesme. General Robbins, do you have details? I do not
have the details, sir.
General Robbins. No, sir.
Ms. DeMesme. I will get some information back to you on
that one.
[The information follows:]
Kelly AFB
The Greater Kelly Development Authority, which is the Local
Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for Kelly Air Force Base (AFB), submitted
a request for a modification to their Economic Development Conveyance
(EDC) for Kelly AFB to reduce their debt of $108 million to $5.2
million, the amount required to fund the treasury reserve account for
the depreciated value of the commissary surcharge fund and/or non-
appropriated fund investment in facilities within the EDC footprint.
The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations) concurred with
the modification and the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) signed the
modified EDC documents on February 29, 2000.
In addition to Kelly, four other modifications to existing EDCs
have been completed. These modifications are in accordance with the
provisions of Section 2821 of the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for fiscal year 2000 (Pub. L. 106-65). The modifications for
Lowry, Myrtle Beach, and Norton AFBs were for the amount already paid
to the Air Force. The EDC for Carswell AFB was for the amount required
to fund the treasury reserve account for the commissary surcharge and/
or the non-appropriated funds investments in facilities within the EDC
footprint: December 9, 1999--Lowry AFB--Reduced the debt from $32.6
million to $7.7 million. December 29, 1999--Myrtle Beach AFB--Reduced
the debt from $8.5 million to $1.1 million. March 6, 2000--Carswell
AFB--Reduced the debt of $3.2 million to $171 thousand. April 13,
2000--Norton AFB--Reduced the debt of $30.2 million to $2.3 million.
The Air Force anticipates receiving a request for a modification to
three more EDCs:
--Mather AFB to eliminate their total remaining debt of $7.9 million.
--McClellan AFB to reduce their debt of $90 million to $2.4 million,
the amount required to fund the treasury reserve account for
the commissary surcharge and/or the non-appropriated funds
investments in facilities within the EDC footprint.
--Reese AFB to eliminate their total remaining debt of $3.2 million.
Senator Burns. Well, it is very concerning to me. Because
we continue to look at BRAC and closing these bases and
facilities, and to hear what happened at Kelly, that is sort of
disturbing. Because that is money that was hard to come by,
that kind of money. It really is.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to bring to your attention a problem that we are
having at Fairchild Air Force Base in Washington State.
Senator Burns. You are not getting any fuel up there. We
can talk more about that.
Senator Murray. Okay, we will work on that one.
My problem has to do with fog today.
Senator Burns. Well, we told them that would happen when
they moved the airplanes to Great Falls.
Senator Murray. Great Falls does not have any fog.
Fog is a problem. First of all, it causes a lot of
diversions and cancellations, but it is also a safety hazard
for the crew that is there. They are looking for an
installation of a centerline runway light that would greatly
improve their operating conditions there. I know that that is a
project in the fiscal year 2005 budget, but if Congress were to
provide full funding for that project this fiscal year, could
you start that project immediately? And if so, how quickly
could it be completed?
Ms. DeMesme. We have certainly been looking at this
project, and realize that there is a great need. If we were to
get an insert, we would do our utmost to get that done this
year. I think we would be able to meet the needs and get the
project funded and underway.
REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
Senator Murray. Okay, good. I understand that the fiscal
year 2001 Air Force budget for military construction is one-
third of the validated need. This is an old story, and every
year the need far outstrips the resources that are allocated to
MILCON. We have seen the backlog in real property maintenance
build up as a result of deferring needed repairs. Are we
creating that same kind of backlog in military construction?
Ms. DeMesme. Unfortunately yes. We are trying to take a
balanced approach to our budget by meeting the modernization
needs, the people needs, and the MILCON needs. And, we have not
been able to meet them all adequately. In our current budget,
we are working on the worst facilities first, working along a
list that we have. It is not the optimal way to operate. And we
do believe that if we continue in this vein, we will exacerbate
our problems.
Senator Murray. What kind of impact will it have on MILCON
budgets a few years out?
Ms. DeMesme. In balancing, unless we are able to acquire
additional funding, I do not believe we will be able to change
the priorities that we have set forth at this time.
Senator Murray. One other question, Mr. Chairman. The
maintenance and renovation of historic military properties is
becoming a real drain on all of our services. Is the Air Force
developing any kind of master plan to deal with the upkeep of
historic properties?
Ms. DeMesme. Yes, we are. We have taken a good look at our
properties. We have determined what the needs are. We are
putting together some guidelines for ways to address these
needs and how to fund them. And we are continuing to examine
exactly what we will need to keep up with needs.
Right now, we are not experiencing a big problem with them.
Our inventory of historical facilities are not that large--not
high enough that we need to change the way we fund them. But we
will continue to keep abreast of that and modify and change our
polices as necessary. Right now, we are trying to comply with
congressional guidelines and Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) policies on those.
Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much.
Senator Burns. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, let me hand you that picture. I feel like
Ross Perot today.
MOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCE BASE
Please do not credit me with thinking like that.
This is a result of a windshield tour that I took of
Mountain Home Air Force Base about 3 weeks ago. And I use this
as an example, because while I have been on the base and I am
extremely proud of what is going on at Mountain Home--in the
composite wing, the work that is being done there, the
construction of the hangar and maintenance facility and all of
that and all that we need for the composite and for additional
missions, the expansion of the training range that you
mentioned which is so critical to the life of that base, but
also to the Air Force's capabilities--we have fallen, in my
opinion, dramatically behind in housing.
Now, I know you spoke of the privatizing, but it did not
work at Mountain Home. In fact, we have discontinued it.
Military dollars on that base, construction dollars out of this
budget, is what is going to do this, not privatizing. And this
is unacceptable, in my opinion, for any of our men and women in
uniform. The stress we put our folks under at Mountain Home, as
we have had them out in the desert ongoing, and they have
performed beautifully well and we are so proud of what they do.
At the same time, they leave their families in these situations
and return home to these situations.
I do not know of another more dramatic way to say that. And
I am not in awe. I want Senator Murray to hear this. I am not
going to criticize her at all, because I am proud of what goes
on at Fairchild. But I have done kind of a glance at MILCON
dollars at Fairchild over the decade and at Mountain Home--$15
million more a year across the border in the State Washington.
Now that we have the kind of missions we are wanting for
Mountain Home, the air space that we have there, the new
training range capability, we have got to change this.
Ms. DeMesme. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. And we do not need to spread it out over a
decade's worth of budget. That does not solve our problem. We
need to get at the business of focusing on this with the kind
of intent necessary to resolve it in a reasonable time frame,
either with the modernization of current facilities--some of
these ought to be razed.
Ms. DeMesme. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. They were built at a time when they were
viewed as somewhat temporary, and that was probably 40 years
ago.
Ms. DeMesme. Yes, sir. We are trying to look at all of our
bases. As I said, we have a master plan, a family housing
master plan. And right now, the Mountain Home program is in our
fiscal year 2004 and 2005 program, based on urgency of need.
We, unfortunately, have other bases with similar housing
problems. And we agree that we would like to do it sooner if we
had the funds to do so. We are committed to improving the
housing for our families.
Senator Craig. I know you are. The reason I bring this to
your attention, depending on the location of the base, the
beauty of Mountain Home is, in part, its isolation, in a
positive way. It creates the air space we need. It gives us the
capability and the flexibility we need. But it also means that
you cannot go to an immediate metro area to live.
Ms. DeMesme. That is true.
Senator Craig. You have to commute long distances, to
Boise, if you choose to live there, and some are now living
there. Their spouses are working in the Boise environment.
Mountain Home, as a community, has tried to hustle to improve
housing, at a time when predominantly the housing was on base.
But still, base efforts are very, very necessary there. And I
would hope that these conditions could change before 2004.
Ms. DeMesme. Sir, we appreciate your concern. We share it.
And we will be looking at our master plan as time goes on. We
are constantly evaluating to determine that we have the right
focus. And if we can, we will. But right now that is where we
are unless something happens between now and then. I do not
know that we could move on that sooner.
Senator Craig. Well, we will maybe try to help you make it
happen. And I do not mean just for Mountain Home. I mean for
the totality of the Air Force.
Ms. DeMesme. We would appreciate any help we could get.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, can I just ask Senator Craig
a question?
Is the reason the privatization effort did not work is lack
of private companies willing to invest in that area?
Senator Craig. In part that, yes. It did not work the way
it was anticipated it might. Now, in some areas, apparently it
is working better.
Ms. DeMesme. Yes, it is.
FAMILY HOUSING
Senator Craig. There, we have got to make that kind of
investment. I do not think there is any question about it.
Senator Burns. There is no doubt about that. And that is
what kind of brings us to our concern about that. Just from the
looks of your budget as it has been proposed now, you have
placed a lower priority on family housing. And that concerns
some of us. So if we can help you along with restructuring some
of that, we might do that.
Ms. DeMesme. We certainly would appreciate it, sir. That
was the only area that we could really afford a little risk in
as we looked at modernization and our other technological
readiness programs. It is not the desired way to proceed.
KELLY AIR FORCE BASE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONVEYANCE
Sir, you asked a question earlier about Kelly Air Force
Base. I think the answer to that is that we have the no-cost
EDC legislation that we got from Congress last year, which
means that we must forgive the debt on some of these facilities
and programs that we had originally planned to collect monies
for. And the program in Texas, the facilities part of that EDC
was a no-cost conveyance that we are, by law, required to
respond to. There might be others of those as we move along.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Senator Burns. It is concerning as we go through this BRAC
thing. And of course we have moved. For instance, we got no
funds, but I will tell you that they are being used to the
limit. Remember the radar stations for low-altitude bombing
runs across there. We have moved some of those. The counties or
the cities took over those facilities.
There is kind of a success story. The one at Conrad,
Montana, which now we have people that applied, as a retirement
complex, from the East Coast to go to Conrad, Montana. Now,
folks, those of you who have been to Conrad, Montana, there is
not a lot there. It is just out there on the flats on the
eastern front. I suspect somebody here was stationed at
Malmstrom and probably understands where Conrad is. But they
are full, if you can believe it, and people are moving out of
the East Coast cities and retiring there because of safety more
than anything else. So they are being used.
Questions on plant improvement and stuff like that, I think
we will do all this in private talks as we move through this.
But tell me about your environmental cleanup. Give me a status
report on how we are doing on those facilities that we are
cleaning up and getting ready to move into private hands.
Ms. DeMesme. We are doing quite well, sir. It is taking
longer than we had originally thought, but we have developed
good working relationships in all of our locations. We are down
to less than five problematic issues a year. We are funding all
of our level 1's to make sure that we are in compliance. And I
am satisfied right now that we are on target and moving
forward.
Senator Burns. I am sorry, we have run into some problems
with the tower reconstruction in Florida, but we will work our
way through those kind of situations, too.
Thank you for coming this morning. And further comments
from any of you would be welcomed. Are there any other
questions from the committee?
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Other members may have questions. If so, we will submit
them and you may respond to those questions to the committee
member or to the committee.
Ms. DeMesme. Thank you, sir. And again, thank you and this
committee for your support of our programs. It has meant a lot
to our men and women to understand that people are listening
and providing the tools we need to make their lives better.
[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
FUNDING LEVELS
Question. Madame Secretary, your fiscal year 2001 budget looks much
weaker than what was enacted last year or the amount proposed last year
for fiscal year 2001. Why is the air force placing such a low priority
on military construction and family housing?
Answer. We have not put a low priority on our military construction
and family housing. These areas are very important to the Air Force but
constrained funding forces the Air Force to accept certain risks where
we thought we could afford to, specifically in the area of
infrastructure. We must balance funding among the priorities of the
people, readiness, modernization, and infrastructure. The fiscal year
2001 President's Budget reflects a balanced approach across all areas
due to fiscal constraints and affordability. We are prepared to meet
the demands of on-going security commitments and executing the national
military strategy. We accomplish this by only funding minimal
infrastructure support and modernizing at less than optimal rates. Our
fiscal year 2001 request is about $3.5 billion short of what we believe
is a good mix among people, readiness, modernization, and
infrastructure. We need sustained increases in funding to substantially
improve the condition of our infrastructure, and strengthen our
modernization efforts.
Question. I was distressed to learn that the Air Force is only
recapitalizing their infrastructure at a rate of one percent of their
plant replacement value (PRV). What are the long term implications to
our facilities of maintaining this funding strategy?
Answer. We recognize that we are taking some risk with the current
level of funding for our infrastructure programs. The long-term
implications of recapitalizing the Air Force plant at reduced levels
will result in greater need to repair and maintain aging systems and
facilities. Our current level of MILCON funding results in a
recapitalization rate of over 200 years. Likewise, our fiscal year 2001
real property maintenance (RPM), which is funded at 1 percent of PRV
limits our day-to-day maintenance to emergency and most critical work
requirements only. Degraded facility conditions can affect combat
capability, productivity and quality of life in the work place that
impacts retention and morale. We will continue to focus our resources
on the highest priority requirements as we balance our investment needs
between people, readiness, modernization and infrastructure.
Question. How do we in the Congress get the Department of Defense
to place more emphasis on fixing this situation?
Answer. There is no easy solution to the situation resulting in the
underfunding of military construction, family housing, and real
property maintenance within the Air Force. The fiscal year 2001
President's Budget reflects the Air Force's priorities of people,
readiness, modernization, and infrastructure. These competing
priorities are balanced to produce the best possible aerospace force
within the given Total Obligating Authority. Possible ways of improving
funding in the infrastructure accounts are to reduce the overall size
of the Air Force's infrastructure through a combination of closure
actions and privatization efforts.
PUBLIC/PRIVATE VENTURES (PPV)
Question. I understand that the Air Force's family housing
privatization project at Lackland AFB is proceeding well. Early reports
indicate that this project is a success. What is the time line for the
other family housing privatization initiatives that will follow?
Answer. Excluding Lackland AFB, the following represents current
projected dates relative to Air Force housing privatization project
execution:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope Notify Congress of Notify Congress of
Project Location (units) Solicitation Award Closing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robins AFB, GA................... 670 Oct. 1998........... June 2000........... July 2000
Elmendorf AFB, AK................ 828 Dec. 1998........... June 2000........... July 2000
Dyess AFB, TX.................... 402 June 1999........... July 2000........... Sept. 2000
Kirtland AFB, NM................. 1,890 May 2000............ Oct. 2000........... Nov. 2000
Wright-Patt, AFB, OH............. 1,536 June 2000........... Dec. 2000........... Jan. 2001
Patrick AFB, FL.................. 960 July 2000........... Dec. 2000........... Jan. 2001
Dover AFB, DE.................... 450 Aug. 2000........... Dec. 2000........... Jan. 2001
McGuire AFB, NJ.................. 999 TBD................. TBD................. TBD
Tinker AFB, OK................... 730 TBD................. TBD................. TBD
-------------
Subtotal................... 8,465
=============
Little Rock AFB, AR.............. 1,535 Sept. 2000.......... Feb. 2001........... Mar. 2001
Moody AFB, GA.................... 696 Sept. 2000.......... Feb. 2001........... Mar. 2001
Vandenberg AFB, CA............... 506 Sept. 2000.......... Mar. 2001........... Apr. 2001
Offutt AFB, NE................... 2,580 Oct. 2000........... May 2001............ June 2001
Charleston AFB, SC............... 488 Nov. 2000........... June 2001........... July 2001
Hill AFB, UT..................... 1,116 Dec. 2000........... July 2001........... Aug. 2001
-------------
Subtotal................... 6,921
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The Department of Defense has been criticized because of
the long time it takes from solicitation to closing of family housing
privatization deals, especially with interest rates so volatile. How is
the Air Force working to shorten this time?
Answer. The Air Force has already taken actions to minimize or
delete ``no-value-added'' steps in our project execution process as a
result of lessons learned during the execution of the Lackland,
Elmendorf, Robins, and Dyess projects. Many of these steps precede
solicitation, however, we are also taking steps to accelerate the
solicitation portion of the process. The Air Force has explored the
possibility of executing privatization projects through leading members
of industry. Further, we are pursuing an accelerated solicitation
methodology with the competitive re-solicitation of the Elmendorf AFB
project, and expect to cut as much as 3-4 months from the process.
Finally, we are pursuing a competitive solicitation methodology through
the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence that uses contractor
support to a greater extent to assist in speeding up the process. If
successful, we intend to implement these concepts for follow-on
projects.
Question. How will Secretary Cohen's recent announcement to buy out
the basic allowance for housing for those service members living on the
economy impact family housing privatization?
Answer. Any basic allowance for housing (BAH) increase could give
the Air Force an opportunity to reduce the amount of loans provided to
developers. This would decrease the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) scored ``up front'' cost required to close a privatization deal.
Our initiatives will be designed such that developers will not receive
a windfall as a result of major BAH increases. BAH increases excess to
project needs will be directed to a holding account and ultimately to
the Family Housing Improvement Fund. The BAH impact on future
privatization initiatives will be addressed in updates to the Air Force
Family Housing Master Plan. We intend to update our Master Plan
annually to address the effects of long term planning factors, such as
BAH, on future military and privatized housing requirements. The Master
Plan is scheduled to be updated in December 2000.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONTINGENCY ELIMINATION
Question. Madame Secretary, the Air Force has greatly improved
their construction project execution the past several years. How will
the loss of contingency funding potentially impact your rate of
execution?
Answer. Lack of contingency funds will impact timely response to
unforeseen conditions during construction, leading to costly delays/
work stoppages. We are working award and funding strategies with our
design/construction agents to ensure sufficient funds are available for
each project so construction can proceed as necessary to meet need
dates and avoid costly delays. However, elimination of contingency
funding for fiscal year 2001 MILCON projects increases the possibility
of deferring projects to provide funds to complete projects under
construction. The elimination of contingency funding for fiscal year
2001 family housing projects increases the possibility of reducing
project scope to provide sufficient contingency funding during
construction.
Question. Could this reduction cause a change in overall scope of
the projects? What are other challenges will this cause?
Answer. For Military Construction (MILCON), the Air Force's goal is
to award all projects at full scope. However, elimination of
contingency funding increases the possibility of deferring projects to
provide funds to complete projects under construction. The Air Force
will fund its most urgent requirements first. This includes new mission
and weapons systems beddowns and projects required by law or treaty. We
will award all remaining projects in order of bid opening until fiscal
year 2001 funds are exhausted. The Air Force plans to fund all
unawarded fiscal year 2001 projects as soon as fiscal year 2002 funds
are available. Deferring projects in this manner shifts the funding
burden to the following program year, greatly increasing the potential
for unsatisfactory execution of future MILCON programs.
For Air Force Housing, the Air Force goal is to award projects at
full scope. However, the number of units within each project may be
reduced at project award or during construction to account for
contingency requirements. Such scope reductions will result in fewer
completed housing units for Air Force families.
Question. When a project encounters cost over-runs, how will the
Air Force treat a shortfall without the contingency account?
Answer. If an awarded fiscal year 2001 project experiences
unforeseen requirements that exceed funding generated from bid-savings,
the Air Force will be forced to defer unawarded fiscal year 2001
projects or use fiscal year 2002/2003 MILCON funds to complete
construction. We are working with our design/construction agents to
ensure construction cost growth is minimized and sufficient funds are
available for each project so construction can proceed to completion
without costly delays and work stoppages. In addition, for family
housing projects, the number of units within each project may be
reduced at project award or during construction to accommodate
unforeseen requirements.
AF UNACCOMPANIED ENLISTED HOUSING PROGRAM
Question. Madame Secretary, in order for the Air Force to meet its
goals for dormitories by 2009, what level of funding each year is
required?
Answer. The Air Force has committed to an $80-90 million per year
annual level of MILCON investment for dormitories. This investment, in
conjunction with OSD Quality of Life supplemental funding which
averages $25 million per year over the President's Budget Future Years
Defense Plan (FYDP), will allow us to reach our goal to eliminate our
dormitory deficit and replace our worst existing dormitories by 2009.
Question. What kind of feedback are you getting from airmen about
these new dormitories? Will it help recruitment and retention?
Answer. Senior leaders have received favorable comments about the
new dormitories. Airmen indicated that these dormitories are modern,
comfortable, and provide the space and privacy to study, relax, and
sleep. In addition to the number of positive responses to One-Plus-One
dorms, there are also some recommendations for improvements. Some
airmen express a desire for a private bath, but by and large most of
the comments center around space and the absence of basic allowance for
subsistence. While the issues airmen have regarding One-Plus-One dorms
concern Air Force leadership, the complaints are not totally
unexpected. We have a group of people who have never lived in the old
dorms. The feeling of joy people felt from moving from the old dorm to
the new one is yesterday's news. It has been five years since we
instituted the construction standard. It is a good time to take a look
at the design standards.
The Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) commented recently that
``junior enlisted personnel are the bedrock of our Air Force and how we
take care of them is inextricably linked to readiness, recruitment, and
retention.'' Quality-of-life issues such as increased TEMPO, medical
care, and pay and compensation are the major detractors in our current
retention environment. However, Air Force leadership has an inherent
responsibility to provide an adequate standard of living for our
members and the One-Plus-One dormitory enhances individual quality of
life. In fact, quality of life in the Air Force is one of several
factors that influence an individual's decision to join the Air Force.
Providing more privacy and amenities are important in addressing
quality of life concerns raised by our single military members. In
1995, 88 percent of airmen living in dormitories said their number one
quality of life concern was privacy. The One-Plus-One dormitory
addressed these particular concerns and enhances quality of life. The
1999 CSAF Survey showed that 73 percent of single enlisted members were
satisfied with their current housing, up from 49 percent in 1997.
Additionally, Air Force leadership has received indications that
providing safe and adequate housing for our single airmen is directly
related to motivating and retaining a top-quality professional force.
They are committed to this important quality-of-life issue and will
continue to work to take care of these deserving professionals.
Question. What criteria determines which installations get their
dormitories modernized faster?
Answer. The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) and Chief of Staff
of the Air Force (CSAF) approved Dormitory Master Plan prioritizes the
Air Force's most urgent requirements taking into account the size of
the installation's dormitory room deficit and condition of existing
dormitories with added emphasis for overseas locations.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE
Question. The Idaho National Guard has two very important military
construction projects that are vital to Gowen Field and the continued
support of the Guard and Reserve.
The proposed assault strip for the Air Guard is essential for the
combat readiness of the Air Guard's 189th Airlift Squadron. Remote
airfields require transit time that expend limited flying hours and
finite resources. At present, the C-130 Assault Strip is in the FYDP
for 2003. I plan to work to have this project expedited. It appears to
me that a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed assault strip would
show cost savings for the Air Force, as soon as the Assault Strip were
up and running. Please provide a cost-benefit analysis of this project
in terms of flying hours, training, manpower, and readiness issues.
I am extremely concerned about the growing reliance on the National
Guard and Reserve. As you know, Idaho's Army National Guard will deploy
to Bosnia in 2002. The greater burden on the citizen-soldier has so
intensified that there is legitimate concern about a soldier's
willingness to stay or join those units. I was pleased to see the
Army's decision to limit overseas deployments of Guard and Reserve
units to six months. However, more must be done. One important avenue
to improve the situation is through military construction. The Idaho
National Guard faces a significant shortage in readiness space at its
facilities at Gowen Field, which resulted from the DOD-directed
reorganization of the 1-183rd Aviation Battalion and the 1-189th
Aviation Medical Detachment. This shortage is impacting readiness and
the ability of the Idaho National Guard to effectively and efficiently
prepare for deployment. The Readiness Center is needed to provide space
for Army Guard units currently located in World War II-era buildings or
in other facilities that are over crowded and inadequate for that
purpose. I strongly recommend that the National Guard Bureau
immediately place this project on the FYDP. I welcome your thoughts or
comments on this issue.
Answer. Reference the cost-benefit analysis of the Assault Strip.
The nearest assault strip which can be used by the unit is located at
McChord AFB, WA. Travel to and from this location for training adds 3
hours to each sortie. Training minimums for the unit require 120
sorties per year. The additional flight time for these sorties costs an
extra $624,600/year in aviation fuel and maintenance costs. These
annual savings yield a 10 year payback on the project which is
excellent given a pavement life cycle of 20 years. Additional, less
quantifiable, benefits will be gained in readiness for the local unit
and surrounding units who will have an additional training asset. Other
units that can use the assualt strip include active Air Force units in
the adjoining states, Nevada Air National Guard, Air Force Special
Operations Command (AFSOC) and the Idaho Army National Guard.
Reference the Army National Guard Readiness Center. We recognize
the importance of the Readiness Center at Gowen Field. Funding
limitations prevented its inclusion in the Future Years Defense Plan
submitted with the President's Budget. However, the project was
priority #27 on the Infrastructure Requirements Plan, which the Army
National Guard forwarded to you in compliance with your annual
requirement. On that plan the project was associated with fiscal year
2001, had there been sufficient funds to meet annual recurring military
construction requirements. In addition, the project appeared in fiscal
year 2001 on the unfunded Future Years Defense Plan, which the
committee requested subsequent to the submission of the President's
Budget.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Burns. Well, from our standpoint of working with
you, Madam Secretary, thank you for your cooperation. It has
been great working with you on this committee, too. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10 a.m., Tuesday, March 7, the hearings were
concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Bailey, Marshall, Director of Support Services, Defense Logistics
Agency, Department of Defense.................................. 33,37
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Questions submitted to....................................... 54
Statement of................................................. 37
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Questions submitted by .................30, 53, 54, 55, 58, 89, 111
Cotton, Rear Adm. John, U.S. Naval Reserve, Deputy Director,
Naval Reserve, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense... 1
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho:
Prepared statement ..........................................23, 63
Questions submitted by .....................................32, 114
Statement of................................................. 62
DeMesme, Ruby B., Assistant Secretary, (Manpower, Reserve
Affairs, Installations and Environment), Department of the Air
Force, Department of Defense................................... 95
Prepared statement........................................... 97
Diamond, Brig. Gen. Robert M., Deputy Chief, U.S. Army Reserve,
Department of the Army, Department of Defense.................. 61
Duignan, Brig. Gen. Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.... 95
Hunter, Maj. Gen. Milton, Director of Military Programs, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense........................................................ 61
Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary (Installations and
Housing), Department of the Army, Department of Defense........ 61
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Statement of................................................. 66
Mashburn, Brig. Gen. Harold, U.S. Marine Corps, Deputy Chief of
Staff for Installations and Logistics, Department of the Navy,
Department of Defense.......................................... 1
McKinley, Brig. Gen. Craig R., Deputy Director, Air National
Guard, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense...... 95
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington:
Questions submitted by ...................................... 56,91
Statement of................................................. 2, 64
Pirie, Robert B., Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Installations and Environment, Department of the Navy,
Department of Defense.......................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Statement of................................................. 3
Robbins, Maj. Gen. Earnest O., II, Headquarters USAF, Civil
Engineer, Deputy Chief of Staff, Installations and Logistics,
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense............. 95
Schwartz, Lt. Gen. Norton, Commander in Chief, U.S. Special
Operations Command, Department of Defense...................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Questions submitted to....................................... 53
Smith, Rear Adm. Louis, Civil Engineer Corps, U.S. Navy,
Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command/Chief of Civil
Engineers, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense....... 1
Squier, Brig. Gen. Michael J., Deputy Director, Army National
Guard, Department of the Army, Department of Defense........... 61
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, statement of........ 65
Tabler, Diana, Deputy Executive Director, TRICARE Management
Activity, Department of Defense................................ 33
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Questions submitted to....................................... 58
Statement of................................................. 49
Tolleson, Ray, Interim Director, Department of Defense Education
Activity, Department of Defense................................ 33
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Questions submitted to....................................... 55
Statement of................................................. 41
Van Antwerp, Maj. Gen. Robert L., Jr., Assistant Chief of Staff
for Installation Management, Department of the Army, Department
of Defense..................................................... 61
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Agencies
U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACITIVITY
TRICARE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY
Page
Additional committee questions................................... 53
America strategic nobility, rebuild.............................. 37
Construction projects, funding for major......................... 49
Department of Defense Dependent Schools (DoDDS).................. 55
Distance learning................................................ 52
DOD Medical Facilities........................................... 58
DODEA:
Programs..................................................... 41
Schools...................................................... 42
Facility costs................................................... 43
MILCON contingency funding....................................... 54
Roosevelt roads infrastructure challenges and Vieques impact on
training....................................................... 53
School, readiness for............................................ 42
SOF relocations from Panama to Puerto Rico, status of............ 53
TRICARE, medical care under...................................... 51
Department of the Air Force
Additional committee questions................................... 110
AF unaccompanied enlisted housing program........................ 113
Contingency:
Elimination, fiscal year 2001................................ 112
Funds........................................................ 105
Environmental cleanup............................................ 110
Family housing................................................... 109
Funding levels................................................... 111
Introduction of witnesses........................................ 95
Kelly Air Force Base............................................. 106
Economic development conveyance.............................. 109
Mountain Home Air Force Base..................................... 108
National Guard and Reserve....................................... 114
Public/private ventures (PPV).................................... 111
Real property maintenance........................................ 107
Department of the Army
Additional committee questions................................... 89
Chemical Demilitarization Program................................ 91
Contingency:
Elimination, fiscal year 2001................................ 91
Reduction.................................................... 83
Dual-use facilities.............................................. 88
Family housing maintenance....................................... 90
Fort Lewis, interim brigade at................................... 84
Funding levels ................................................. 89,90
Historic properties.............................................. 92
Military construction requirements............................... 92
National Guard raid teams........................................ 86
Public/private ventures (PPV).................................... 90
Washington State Army National Guard MILCON funding.............. 91
Department of the Navy
Additional committee questions................................... 29
BAH.............................................................. 20
BRAC............................................................. 4
Contingency...................................................... 17
Elimination, fiscal year 2001................................ 32
Demolition Program............................................... 31
Funding levels................................................... 30
Historic quarters................................................ 5
Homeport ashore.................................................. 19
Housing.......................................................... 3
Public/private ventures (PPV).................................... 30
Vieques ......................................................... 18,32